Concerns are being raised about Australia’s new Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF 2.0). The Frankfurt school cultural Marxism – aka Critical Theory – saturates the 2022 nationally approved ‘scaffold to assist educators’. Rooted in its fine print is the dualism of the oppressor versus oppressed cognitive distortion. Doctrines of Marxian post-modernism found in the EYLF 2.0 include:

• Critical Race Theory (CRT)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
• Environmental Social Governance (ESG)
• Queer theory (QT)
• Feminist post-structuralism
• Social justice
• Cultural safetyism
• Reconciliation (which now means decolonisation)

There is an unusual emphasis on ‘linguistic diversity’ instead of English proficiency, which is odd considering many immigrant families want their kids to be taught English. The same could be said for Indigenous families who do not wish to see their kids held back in society, or signalled out for being ‘different’. Ditching English for ‘linguistic diversity’ is, in my view, the political act of rejecting the ‘language of the oppressor’. Linguistic diversity is followed by cultural safetyism. The EYLF defines this as the ‘recognition, respect, and protection of the inherent rights, cultures, and traditions of a particular culture’. Within this, Indigenous ethnocentrism is masked as ‘cultural responsiveness’. Early child care educators must, ‘embed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in all aspects of the curriculum’. Out goes ABCD, 1,2,3, and in comes LGBT-CRT. It is worth noting that cultural safetyism aligns with the ‘blood and soil’ dogma asserted in the 2017 UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. This states, in sum, ‘All cultures are equal. To say otherwise is racism.’ Linked to this is the appeal to trauma (perpetual grievance politics). There are four categories contained within this teaching. Three are of value. One isn’t. Single incident, complex, and intergenerational trauma is fair, and necessary. The fourth category is historical trauma, and it’s straight out of the communist playbook on historical determinism. Historical trauma refers to the oppressors (Europeans), and the oppressed first peoples (specifically the ‘stolen’ generations). Enter Critical Race Theory. Further evidence of communist (or Cultural Marxist) doctrines within the EYLF includes critical reflection. This is essentially a Marxian self-condemning struggle session. Educators enter into a ‘meaning-making process’ to empower ‘equity and social justice’. Daycare staff are put through repetitive, self-condemning struggle sessions on race, environment, culture, diversity, and ethnicity. Educators are taught to criticise and distance themselves from their European ancestry. It’s also in their training. No educator can attain their ECC qualifications without admitting they’re racist, although this may be masked in softer language such as accepting collective racial guilt. There is no dissent, nor diversity of thought allowed. Trainees have to use the language ascribed to them by the activist class. Early Child care educators are forced to admit their assumed ‘implicit bias’, inherent ‘whiteness’, and how their skin colour is the cause of ‘systemic racism’. The re-education indoctrination gets worse. On occasion, activists who operate as independent educators are invited to come into day centres to run these struggle sessions. Under the guise of ‘professional development’ these Woketivists are paid good money to lecture staff about race and privilege. Wokeshevist political activism is, in my opinion, the backbone of the learning framework. In one textbook offered, the authors admit:

‘Working in Childcare is a political act.’

In other words, working in childcare is not about educating kids, it’s about indoctrinating them. Generally, this means ‘inclusive storytelling’:

• Assuming racism where this is none.
• Fighting oppression through paranoia: rooting out bias and discrimination by reading bias and discrimination into people’s lives.
• Replacing individual responsibility with ‘deconstructing white privilege’.
• Elevating ‘voice and visibility’: where some identities are seen as good and others are not.
• Advancing reconciliation (by this they now mean decolonising).

When asked by Today Tonight why ‘little kids needed to be social justice warriors’ one of the authors said:

‘Kids have a capacity to be inclusive, once they know about these ideas, and they [the kids] think, “Wow, why are people seeing this as a controversy?”’

While there are clear concerns about the politicisation of the daycare industry, there’s been little to no protests against it. The absence of any revolt against Marxian manipulation isn’t surprising. The daycare industry is heavily subsidised by successive Australian governments. Last year this funding hit upwards of $4.5 billion. Dissent could deprive early childcare centres of taxpayer funding, with activist bureaucrats issuing a punitive downgrade in accreditation. As discussed, the lack of criticism is a result of training. The national flag and anthem has been replaced with forced worship of deeply divisive activist ideas. If educators are compromised, it will be up to informed Australian parents, like America’s Xi Van Fleet, to draw the line. Normalising racial guilt and encouraging children to take on blame for contested historical events is, in my opinion, child abuse.

---

This article was first published in Caldron Pool.