top of page

501. Education vs Indoctrination Probable Causes


Most of us send our very youngest members of society off to be taught what to think before they are old enough to ask critical questions and think for themselves.  The dynamics of our early childhood education system kills the maximum critical-thinking potential early on in children who go from a likely high state of freedom to a sudden, sensory-shocking switch to desk-sitting and rote activities.  Learning how to participate in society is an important part of growing up, but the dynamics of shocking the senses of helpless, young kids explicitly goes far beyond that.  Captivating an audience who can't question you kind of stands on its face as well.   For example, some politically-motivated lawyers involved in educational bureaucracy long ago evidently began the widespread perpetuation of misinformation regarding law and the government, such as the idea that the constitution is "not law but a guideline" I remember being taught early on myself.  Instead of using the scientific method to ask the important questions about mainstream educational narratives like this one, dissent is often persecuted like witchcraft and never examined.  False narratives are extremely difficult to combat after generations of their perpetuation, when everyone alive has mostly relied on that kind of hearsay and never looks into the totality of circumstances, let alone one primary source for themselves, which is quite common.  Our schools do not tend to teach basic cross examination skills to anyone but specialists, they seem to teach us to fear conflict instead.  I do not have a simple constitutional solution for the following PROBABLE CAUSES other than to INVESTIGATE, but maybe it is time that Americans start thinking about having more competitively serious schools that work their way up to necessary assimilation instead of ones that use "shock therapy" to exploit artificial social dynamics and maintain social control.  Professionals could not perpetually tell us that the most fundamental, participatory laws are too complicated for anyone to read before even trying if education was not so bottlenecked.


History is not just a set of names, dates, and events that bore students out of the topic.  History is an endless volume of valuable lessons that our schools should have taught us and need to be teaching our kids.  Did you know that there were four explorers who reached the Americas before Columbus?  Information that bores students deters them from their education and helps create troubled youth in the worst cases, yet unfortunately most students feel that way about their education because of the bottlenecked, dry standards that are especially apparent with primary education history classes.  Every teacher in every school district is different, but the way educational bureaucracy has set up a great deal of their standards perpetuates a great majority of students who are deterred, whether recognizing or not that our schools are more social conditioning than education.  When students are bored instead of engaged, they are more susceptible not to question bottlenecked information in the refresher crash-courses on things they have been taught since before they could question.  A very common example of "bottlenecked information" is the perpetuation of the idea that courts have judicial law-making powers, which largely comes back to the Marbury v. Madison ruling and our natural rights.  Average Americans working from elementary educational memory are good at repeating something to the effect of "precedent becomes the law and whatever the law actually says does not matter."  The in-practice rule of English Common Law is supposed to establish precedential standards for circumstances under a given law in question based on what is reasonable and unburdensome.  Instead, law students as well as helpless elementary schoolers have been taught that precedent "is the law of the land" and statically alters the meaning of laws on a first-come-first-serve basis.  The constitution is actually pretty clear on that.  If law is limited to case law, how would new cases possibly be made?!  And what happens when the appeals process makes mistakes?  Do we really think the constitution says judicial errors shall become law after three strikes or whatever?  An absurdly small level of detail in the field is necessary to see through many of these norms we were taught since before we could question.  The widespread assumption about the binding nature of case law compared to the laws they are sourced from (or not) can usually be shattered when one is reminded of the possibility of a swing court that credibly finds a past court to have made a mistake.  We've seen how foolish this interpretation of “original" "construction” is when applied to extremely broad language throughout our constitutional rights.  And yet, you will hear people who don't know what they are talking about cite "precedent" as a justification for government to inflame our hardships all of the time.  This "acquired meaning" we are taught characterizes how boundless judicial power has replaced the rule of law itself


Through the professional bottlenecking of knowledge about the process of conversation itself, our schools have successfully taught many Americans to shield themselves from conflicting points of view at all costs.  What kind of supposed scientific-method based academies produce the results we have in our country, where too many of us "cancel" any opposition and negativity whatsoever instead of examining and resolving it?  When so many Americans cannot distinguish premises from conclusions or even questions sometimes, we are more likely to hear any slight conflicting point of view as a personal attack instead of a possible factual notion indicating that our own view may be wrong.  The state of social dynamics in our country is not doing well when we seem to have been taught to interpret challenges to our thoughts in part as challenges to our intelligence in whole.  Presuming that someone who is caught in a fallacy is just an impeached witness in every measure like that is another unfortunate result of postmodernism.  Postmodernism is literally the "scientific doctrine" on the processing of information itself that says all information is equal and "if you are wrong, that is simply 'your reality.'"  A good example is Mt. Everest.  Most people think it is the tallest single mountain in the world, but that is actually the tallest Hawaiian volcano.  The difference between postmodernism and REALITY is that a postmodernist would not admit they are wrong when they are caught in the act, but would instead say "that is my reality."  Another good example is the green tech cartel.  We all know that "smoking" in a "closed room" impacts the air, but the waste green tech and over-commercialized modern life produces greatly outweighs the greenhouse effect.  Furthermore, the technology for high-mpg carburetors was recognizably concealed in the 1930s.  Should Americans carry the burdens of donating, spending on, and throwing out our perfectly good property by law for this new cartel front, or should we identify the absurdly paradoxical lies, clean up, and work with what we already have?  The problem with the word "ambiguous" that professionals should know better than us is that it has a definition.  All of the dangerous minor premises that have come out of postmodernism, such as sexualizing children using the same educational social conditioning methods, stand on their face.  How will we solve a problem if we refuse to look at the equation?


During my short time studying at the University of California, I was exposed to a harmful worldview that I had only read about until then.  In two of my classes, the chapters on white-collar crime were presented in a highly suspicious way.  Basically, when looking at the prosecution of crimes in big government and industry as a university student, the steeper than normal burdens of proof were presented in a way that makes them sound too hard to work on, like one shouldn't choose this career if that is what they are thinking about, as if it should be something to be fearful of and left alone.  That's crazy!  The burdens of proof certainly are steeper in systematically unfair trials resulting from top-dollar lawyers drawing every possible ambiguity that is not there down the list and seeing whether the opposing attorney can stand up to them (if they don't have other, conflicting business interests).  That does not mean we should teach criminal justice students not to even look at white collar crime.  I also caught a feel of these attitudes while talking to other students about their fields of interest, in conversations that deeply reminded me of when politicians scoff at the thought of reading at least a part of the bills themselves.  Imagine what else students of professionalism are being taught to do or not do based on what I witnessed.  We've already seen and experienced that our schools have been self-perpetually teaching "socialism" to our youth.  My experience is only a minor premise of the major-premise worldview I mentioned regarding bottlenecked field scientists, and it is a case study in absurd "lessons" that teach the opposite of what any reasonable, capable person would teach in their place For example, the mass-perpetuation of unconstitutional legal traditions has enabled powerful special interests to somehow convince most law students for an unknown amount of time that i) States are not entitled to full faith and credit, ii) courts can omit constitutional language like "due," and iii) one right can deny/disparage another (to name a few examples).  I also didn't mention anything on the about pages of the incontrovertible suspiciousness of when an unknown fraternity member targeted me in my room from outside of my window, and no one else, in a dark way on my first night on campus, 800 miles away from anyone I know.  We must stop sending our "experts" off to preserve rule by governing class.

bottom of page