Epstein Archive
 



  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
It’s not just that they tell us what to think, it’s that they train us how to think.
#1
Perhaps it's somewhat low-effort on my part, but I found this little rant to be a rather concise summary of my opinions on the practice of American politics, and since the author gives free license to reprint her work, I'm quoting in here to invite other's opinions:


It’s not just that they tell us what to think, it’s that they train us how to think.

From grade school on we are fed a framework for thinking about the world whose premises are completely fraudulent. Any analysis which does not take place within that framework is portrayed as ignorant at best and dangerous extremism at worst.

Before we come up with a single thought of our own about politics, we are trained to assume as our starting point that elections are real and that the official democratically elected government is the only power structure calling the shots in our country. We are trained to assume that decisions get made in our government based on how people vote in elections between two parties who oppose each other and promote the most organically popular positions on important issues in order to win votes. This is all complete bullshit, but it’s the foundation we’re taught to premise all our ideas and opinions about political matters upon.

Before we come up with a single thought of our own about government, we are trained to assume as our starting point that the people running things in our country are known to us and occupy official positions in our capitol. We are trained to assume that if we have a problem with the way things are going, there are official channels through which the powerful can be held to account and real changes can be advanced. The fact that we are actually ruled by unelected plutocrats and empire managers who often have no position in the official government is never seriously entertained.

Before we come up with a single thought of our own about the media, we are trained to assume as our starting point that we live in a free country with a free press instead of a dystopian civilization where the news media function as the propaganda services of our rulers. We are trained to assume that while some parts of the media may have obvious biases regarding which mainstream political faction they favor, it’s still possible to get a more or less accurate read on what’s happening in the world by listening to both sides of that ideological divide. None of this is true, but it’s the framework in which all mainstream analysis of the western media occurs.

Before we come up with a single thought of our own about foreign policy, we are trained to assume as our starting point that the US and its allies are more or less a force for good in this world, and that all the stories we hear about the governments and groups it works to destroy are more or less true. We are trained to assume that while the western power structure is imperfect and might make mistakes here and there, it must never stop killing and tyrannizing foreigners, because if it does, the bad guys might win. The easily quantifiable fact that the US-centralized empire is by far the most tyrannical and abusive power structure on earth never enters into the discussion.

This is the conceptual framework for thinking about the world that people are trained to espouse, first in school, and then throughout the rest of their lives by the mass media. If they go to university, as the most powerful people in our society typically do, then this framework is hammered home far more aggressively — especially in the most esteemed universities that the so-called “elite” tend to come from.

No thoughts which arise from outside this framework are taken seriously in mainstream politics, media, or academia. They might occasionally be entertained by friends over a bong or between chuckles on a podcast, but they are kept in the margins. This is reinforced by the way people learn that in order to ascend to influence and success they need to adhere to a specific way of thinking about things, thereby ensuring that all the most influential voices align with the authorized framework as well.

Ferocious disagreement is permitted, but before the debate even begins everyone involved needs to adhere to the founding assumptions of the official framework. After that you can argue as passionately as you like with the other side of this manufactured divide, because your ideas cannot pose any serious threat to your rulers.

And this, ultimately, is why the world looks the way it looks: because powerful people have been so successful at manipulating the way the public thinks about things. Our minds are inundated with propaganda telling us what to think, but more importantly they are shaped and programmed how to think about any new information they might come across.

Most of us are psychologically bent to the will of the powerful before we would ever even be in a position to begin thinking about opposing the status quo. We are herded like livestock away from thoughts of revolution and change, led by tightly controlled minds the way a bull is led by the ring on its nose.

Once you see how pervasive the conditioning is, you understand why getting real revolutionary movements going faces so much inertia. We won’t be able to free ourselves until we find a way to free our minds.


Did she miss anything?
Reply
#2
I'm not to sure about that theory because I was taught history in school where wars and uprisings were fought to change the status quo, such as the storming of the Bastille, which made a great impact on me, that being, the people can rise up and can effect great changes.

Then we are free to teach ourselves other ways of thinking, such as reading subjects such as philosophy and, if one can foster an open mind, the opinions of those considered militant activists, or rather negatively labelled.

My point is, you are free to break free.
"The real trouble with reality is that there is no background music." Anonymous

Plato's Chariot Allegory
Reply
#3
The problem is not that we are taught how to think, as we were when I was young; it's that they currently teach children what to think. Bill Ayers and his crowd have done a lot of harm as do all Marxist that want to force everyone to think as they do.
Quote:We are trained to assume that while the western power structure is imperfect and might make mistakes here and there, it must never stop killing and tyrannizing foreigners, because if it does, the bad guys might win. The easily quantifiable fact that the US-centralized empire is by far the most tyrannical and abusive power structure on earth never enters into the discussion.

It seems to me you are saying that they need to teach your ideology, not how to develop their own ideology, as should be the case in a free society. Are you complaining because children are not taught to hate our country and to be self-loathing? The quote above seems to say that.
Quote:Most of us are psychologically bent to the will of the powerful before we would ever even be in a position to begin thinking about opposing the status quo. We are herded like livestock away from thoughts of revolution and change, led by tightly controlled minds the way a bull is led by the ring on its nose.

Once you see how pervasive the conditioning is, you understand why getting real revolutionary movements going faces so much inertia. We won’t be able to free ourselves until we find a way to free our minds.

The whole idea of "revolution" is wrong-minded which is why there are only a tiny number of people irrational enough to consider it. Want change? Learn to use the system rather than fighting it. Teach our children to use the system and all will be well.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."
- Benjamin Franklin -
 
Reply
#4
(01-31-2025, 07:26 PM)UltraBudgie Wrote: Perhaps it's somewhat low-effort on my part, but I found this little rant to be a rather concise summary of my opinions on the practice of American politics, and since the author gives free license to reprint her work, I'm quoting in here to invite other's opinions:


It’s not just that they tell us what to think, it’s that they train us how to think.

From grade school on we are fed a framework for thinking about the world whose premises are completely fraudulent. Any analysis which does not take place within that framework is portrayed as ignorant at best and dangerous extremism at worst.

Before we come up with a single thought of our own about politics, we are trained to assume as our starting point that elections are real and that the official democratically elected government is the only power structure calling the shots in our country. We are trained to assume that decisions get made in our government based on how people vote in elections between two parties who oppose each other and promote the most organically popular positions on important issues in order to win votes. This is all complete bullshit, but it’s the foundation we’re taught to premise all our ideas and opinions about political matters upon.

Before we come up with a single thought of our own about government, we are trained to assume as our starting point that the people running things in our country are known to us and occupy official positions in our capitol. We are trained to assume that if we have a problem with the way things are going, there are official channels through which the powerful can be held to account and real changes can be advanced. The fact that we are actually ruled by unelected plutocrats and empire managers who often have no position in the official government is never seriously entertained.

Before we come up with a single thought of our own about the media, we are trained to assume as our starting point that we live in a free country with a free press instead of a dystopian civilization where the news media function as the propaganda services of our rulers. We are trained to assume that while some parts of the media may have obvious biases regarding which mainstream political faction they favor, it’s still possible to get a more or less accurate read on what’s happening in the world by listening to both sides of that ideological divide. None of this is true, but it’s the framework in which all mainstream analysis of the western media occurs.

Before we come up with a single thought of our own about foreign policy, we are trained to assume as our starting point that the US and its allies are more or less a force for good in this world, and that all the stories we hear about the governments and groups it works to destroy are more or less true. We are trained to assume that while the western power structure is imperfect and might make mistakes here and there, it must never stop killing and tyrannizing foreigners, because if it does, the bad guys might win. The easily quantifiable fact that the US-centralized empire is by far the most tyrannical and abusive power structure on earth never enters into the discussion.

This is the conceptual framework for thinking about the world that people are trained to espouse, first in school, and then throughout the rest of their lives by the mass media. If they go to university, as the most powerful people in our society typically do, then this framework is hammered home far more aggressively — especially in the most esteemed universities that the so-called “elite” tend to come from.

No thoughts which arise from outside this framework are taken seriously in mainstream politics, media, or academia. They might occasionally be entertained by friends over a bong or between chuckles on a podcast, but they are kept in the margins. This is reinforced by the way people learn that in order to ascend to influence and success they need to adhere to a specific way of thinking about things, thereby ensuring that all the most influential voices align with the authorized framework as well.

Ferocious disagreement is permitted, but before the debate even begins everyone involved needs to adhere to the founding assumptions of the official framework. After that you can argue as passionately as you like with the other side of this manufactured divide, because your ideas cannot pose any serious threat to your rulers.

And this, ultimately, is why the world looks the way it looks: because powerful people have been so successful at manipulating the way the public thinks about things. Our minds are inundated with propaganda telling us what to think, but more importantly they are shaped and programmed how to think about any new information they might come across.

Most of us are psychologically bent to the will of the powerful before we would ever even be in a position to begin thinking about opposing the status quo. We are herded like livestock away from thoughts of revolution and change, led by tightly controlled minds the way a bull is led by the ring on its nose.

Once you see how pervasive the conditioning is, you understand why getting real revolutionary movements going faces so much inertia. We won’t be able to free ourselves until we find a way to free our minds.



Did she miss anything?

They train us "how" to think?

To agree with that you have to embrace the notion that what they are doing is training.

In my estimation, contextually speaking, training usually involves creating, in any individual replicable competency expressed as capabilities, familiarity, and execution of specific tasks.

What they are doing is using a Prussian training model from many generations ago, and hacking it into an indoctrination program for ideology and Big Brother love.

They foist up "legitimacy" via the primary social institutions, they contract, usurp, or overtake media programming to ensure everyone knows that everyone agrees with the overall plan... except the 'deplorables.'  Dissent then becomes a negative social trait, currency is diminished.

Also, it might bear mentioning that the word "elite" has somehow become strangely distinct...  Do they call themselves that?  Certainly it would appear that some must... How does the "elite" moniker come to be bestowed?  Just money?  I think not.  I've met some pretty 'deplorable' rich folks in my time.   So it's not money...

Is it s club, a la "illuminati?"  Maybe.  But how likely is it that it's just one club? Not very.

What has been happening to our world has not been entirely organic.  People are not being allowed to simply be "people."  They're not just being told what to think... they're almost universally being made to believe that they cannot think for themselves... it's just too difficult... everything is too complex... so don't even try.

I know the first step of the solution... talk to each other... stop worshiping people who are paid to talk to you.
Reply
#5
Yes. I want to hear the opinions of non-Americans about this.

Wouldn't it be cool if DI were a language-translated site in France, China, Russia, India, etc., with posts automatically translated into each language and merged/mirrored? Multiple cultures in a single thread. Why hasn't someone done this yet? Seems easy enough, technically. That sort of permeability of discussion across old 20th-century boundaries of language, nation, and culture would really help.

Max I agree, talk to each other, but also and maybe first listen to each other, understand each other, and empathize with each other, else what does talking do? We're all so siloed. Echo chambers.
Reply
#6
(02-10-2025, 10:57 PM)UltraBudgie Wrote: Yes. I want to hear the opinions of non-Americans about this.

Wouldn't it be cool if DI were a language-translated site in France, China, Russia, India, etc., with posts automatically translated into each language and merged/mirrored? Multiple cultures in a single thread. Why hasn't someone done this yet? Seems easy enough, technically. That sort of permeability of discussion across old 20th-century boundaries of language, nation, and culture would really help.

Max I agree, talk to each other, but also and maybe first listen to each other, understand each other, and empathize with each other, else what does talking do? We're all so siloed. Echo chambers.

Yes, it would be very cool and informative to have DI automatically translate in any language.

I think culture and the need to belong would show these to be just some of the driving forces behind choosing which teachings/ideology/echo chambers to accept or being forced to accept due to the threat of perhaps being ostracized.
"The real trouble with reality is that there is no background music." Anonymous

Plato's Chariot Allegory
Reply