The new school: anatomy of an anthropological metamorphosis

In classrooms that once echoed with Latin conjugations and mathematical theorems, a different sound now pervades the air—a subtle murmur, the whisper of ideology seeping between desks like an invisible gas. The new school no longer educates; it molds. It no longer transmits knowledge; it shapes consciousness. It has become the laboratory of an anthropological revolution that proceeds by degrees, with the methodical patience of those who understand that generations are conquered one classroom at a time, one concept at a time, one innocence at a time.

The latest act in this epochal transformation bears the name “parental informed consent” for sexual education—a proposal by italian Minister Valditara intended to reassure concerned families. Yet like all apparent concessions of power, this too conceals a subtle deception: while one door closes, a thousand others swing wide open. The system has mastered the art of adaptation, of continuous metamorphosis that preserves the essence while changing the forms.

Genesis of a total system

Four decades ago, the first nuclei of what was then timidly called “sexual education” infiltrated schools as advanced pedagogical experiments. Those were the heroic times of educational avant-garde, when merely waving the banner of progress sufficed to open every door. Today, that seedling has grown into an intricate forest of protocols, guidelines, and international conventions that envelop the school in an inescapable web.

The WHO’s “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe,” developed in 2010, represents the catechism of this new secular religion. Children aged zero to four must learn about “the joy of touching one’s own body,” “early childhood masturbation,” “different types of family relationships.” At four to six years: “relationships with people of the same sex,” “sensations related to sexuality.” A program of systematic desensitization that proceeds in stages, like training little soldiers for a cultural war whose stakes they will never comprehend.

UNESCO completed the work in 2018 with its “International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education“, organically integrated into Agenda 2030. Here the mask falls: this is no longer merely about “education,” but about a “satellite navigation system”—to use Enrico Giovannini of ASVIS’s words—that must guide “every sphere of action and thought.” A GPS for consciousness, orientation software installed in the still-malleable minds of children.

The paradox of denied consent

The Valditara proposal appears as a bastion of common sense: families must give informed consent for any activity related to sexuality. It seems reasonable, even obvious. But it is precisely here that the most refined deception lurks. While constructing the illusion of having returned control to parents, the system that bypasses them is being perfected.

For while “sexual education” exits through the window, “relationship education” re-enters through the front door with Gino Cecchettin as the lay apostle of a new masculinity that is “feminist and less alpha.” Personal tragedy transformed into ideological fuel, pain instrumentalized to convey a precise message: the male is inherently dangerous, must be re-educated from kindergarten onward, emasculated, made to feel guilty for the original sin of his very being.

Girls will grow up distrustful of the opposite sex, trained to see in every male a potential predator. Boys will grow up with guilt over a nature they did not choose, forced to repress instincts deemed inherently toxic. This is social engineering applied to the formation of sexual identity, a mass experiment conducted on unwitting subjects.

The multiplication of ideological vectors

The system has learned to multiply through budding. Block one channel, and it opens ten others. Explicit sexual education becomes transversal civic education, relationship education, gender equality education, stereotype fighting, violence prevention. Every subject—from mathematics to history—becomes contaminated by new indoctrination techniques. Textbooks overflow with propaganda disguised as pedagogy; teachers become vehicles of an anthropological transformation whose scope they often fail to grasp.

The school thus transforms into a gigantic machine of social conformity. No longer a place for transmitting knowledge, but a laboratory for producing new subjectivities. No longer a temple of learning, but a factory of docile consciousness, predisposed to accept any dominant narrative without developing the critical antibodies necessary to decode it.

Illiteracy as programmed side effect

While infinite energies are spent sexually re-educating five-year-old children, Italian schools produce functional illiterates at an industrial pace. The data is merciless: one in four students cannot comprehend a text of medium complexity, mathematical and scientific competencies are in free fall, general culture dissolves in a sea of voluntary ignorance.

But perhaps this is no accident. Perhaps illiteracy is a foreseen, if not actually programmed, side effect. Confused minds, lacking critical tools, incapable of connecting causes and effects, represent ideal terrain for any social engineering experiment. A people who cannot read, write, calculate, or reason is an easily manipulable people, eternally immature, dependent on enlightened elites who think for them.

The betrayal of educational function

The school thus betrays its primordial function. Born to liberate minds through knowledge, it transforms into its opposite: a control system that imprisons consciousness in increasingly sophisticated ideological cages. Teachers, once guardians of knowledge, become technicians of mental manipulation. Classrooms, once sanctuaries of critical spirit, transform into cells of intellectual detention.

Parental informed consent risks becoming yet another fig leaf for a system that has already won. Because the point is not to regulate indoctrination, but to eliminate it. Not to control propaganda, but to expel it. Not to better manage manipulation, but to reject it categorically.

Toward authentic resistance

True resistance cannot limit itself to damage control. It must aim for total reconquest of the educational institution. This means first reaffirming the primacy of fundamental disciplines—Italian, history, mathematics, sciences—which alone can provide the tools to decode the complexity of reality. It means restoring dignity to the teacher’s role as irreplaceable mediator between humanity’s cultural heritage and new generations.

Most importantly, it means reconquering the centrality of the family as the primary place of integral education of the person. School can transmit knowledge, skills, methods. But education of the soul, character formation, transmission of values belong to the family sphere and cannot be expropriated by any institution, however well-intentioned it proclaims itself.

Epilogue: the future that awaits us

The battle for the new school is not merely a pedagogical question. It is the decisive clash to determine what type of humanity we will bequeath to the future. On one side, a free humanity, conscious, capable of critical thinking, rooted in its traditions yet open to authentic dialogue. On the other, an artificial humanity, manipulable, devoid of identity, enslaved to narratives imposed from above.

Time is running short. Each generation that passes through the meat grinder of the new school emerges more conformed, more docile, more distant from its authentic humanity. Parental informed consent may be a first step, but only if inserted into a broader strategy of integral reconquest of the educational system.

For what is at stake is not only the education of our children. At stake is the very future of Western civilization, its capacity to transmit the heritage of beauty, truth, and freedom that has made possible all that we are. And that heritage, once lost, might never return.

The new school asks us to choose: accomplices or resisters. Spectators or protagonists. Subjects or free men. There is no more time for indifference.