nourishing obscurity

This might be getting a bit incestuous now.

On a crowded train, many sit silently but small groups and pairs talk and to hear them talk, their concerns are anything but political, except as it affects the hip pocket nerve. Take any of these and quiz them and they’d say, “We’ve always voted Labour [therefore we’ll never alter that learned behaviour],” or, “We live in a quite pleasant area [translate to mean a Tory stronghold].”

With zero will to alter this in the community, the MSM, as thinkers know, are never going to act to alter anything but for someone to suggest that the silent majority are political sheep casts that speaker as arrogant and high-nosed.

The worst aspect is that factually erroneous opinions become hardwired into belief, then into the institutionalization of that belief and it takes a revolution, instigated by powerful and monied forces, to eventually turn that on its head.

Equally, truth on some matters, inimical to powerful forces, for whom it would mean questioning the new “progressive” orthodoxies, means that an ongoing campaign must be waged, e.g. Hawking and signs on the sides of buses, on and on and on and on until, if you say it enough, people begin to believe it, irrespective of the soundness of its premises.

I thought it was well put in a youtube further on in this article:

For every opinion or belief someone may hold, there will be another party who just as strongly opposes that idea. Both sides usually claim to sit with the best arguments, the real facts and the correct world view and ironically, both sides regard the other as being indoctrinated, blind to the obvious and outright stupid.

Most people only expose themselves to information that matches their own world view. It is uncomfortable to do otherwise.

That’s why, say, when a blogger who prides himself on his historical analysis reads something different, say at this blog, he comments, “I’ve never read that in any recognized histories,” to which this blogger replies, “No, you’re right – you haven’t.”

Victors write the histories, as he’d well know and in education, for example, it has been a titanic battle for the hearts and minds of educators, for well over a hundred years, which has seen the current blight we are experiencing, a blight even the common man is starting to recognize, as students go into life unprepared and unequipped with any genuinely efficacious learning, e.g. the liberal arts.

It’s not terribly hard to establish, as will happen further on in this article, that there has been a concerted campaign by elements we could characterize as the super-wealthy and the elite, for certain theories of education to have found vogue worldwide but what is more difficult to establish is that these forces are necessarily evil.

This is the central debate today.

We can now establish, through much broader access to information of all hues, how something came about, e.g. the EU from the Club of Rome but will people recognize the evil roots behind such a group? If that could be connected to AM Rothschild, does that make it any more evil? Also, evil, if it exists, must have secrecy to survive and propagate because few will openly embrace that which they know to be evil.

Far more likely is that they’ll believe they are actually embracing good e.g. Marxists like the Gillard in Australia or the Lucas or Mulgan or dear old Norman in the UK and there are many techniques to assist devotees to think that way.

Roots of modern western educational orthodoxies

Educational theories are based on research and therefore the key to your view being adopted is to control the research you accept and that which you ignore or reject.

This article speaks of the Wundtian basis of educational psychology and it’s also mentioned in this article [thank you, Cassandra], the bottom line being that Rockefeller, among others, funded a psychology which most nearly fitted their global concept of the future, Wundt and Dewey’s ideas therefore found, firstly vogue, with saturation publicity, then academic acceptance, as other ideas were marginalized, ignored and then suppressed and finally institutionalization as “the history of or foundations of education”, based on utter bollocks.

This article goes into the various types of research which are undertaken, why some types which were based on experiment and data have been marginalized in favour of that based on opinion of opinion, eventually institutionalized as given fact, which leads to the best-funded “research” being the one adopted and pushed as “new discoveries” based on “sound principles”, i.e. opinions of opinions and those opinions coming from those funded and therefore acceptable to the funders.

An example many can identify with is the throwing out of rote chanting of arithmetical tables, a methodology based on sound principles, the proof of the pudding being the generations who were taught this way and even now can mentally compute at a level the modern student has not been given a chance to do. Ditto the learning of vocabulary in spelling lists, a most effective method if followed up with context, in the form of reading and comprehension questions on that reading.

To take the majority of current EFL English texts, the pure grammar component has the rule stated and a short exercise to reinforce it, with pointers to further exercises but where it falls down is that this component is swamped by the “feelgood” elements which work on the premise that learning is like castor oil to children and must be both disguised and given in small doses.

In place of actual core learning are high sounding subject titles requiring critical thinking skills, which in turn require a sound literacy and numeracy, which so many do not have and therefore they bow to “learned” opinion – that opinion the very opinion which was funded in the first place.

You see where this is going.

Psychology and psychiatry

I quoted an article long ago, in which a keynote speaker blew the lid on the American and Canadian psychiatric community and its ties with intelligence agencies, among others. This was probably the closest to sheeting home the whole notion of modern psychiatry and who is practising it, the old boy net and links to evil.

When an “Expert Consultant to the Secretary of War”, prolific correspondent with J Edgar Hoover and CIA referenced psychologist such as G H Estabrooks is involved in this:

In “Man, the Mechanical Misfit” written by George H. Estabrooks, he described a technical innovation in an 11 year old boy who had brain electrodes implanted for non therapeutic reasons. Jose Delgado had figured out how to have a remote transmitter without a direct wire connection. He described pushing a button in this otherwise normal 11 year old boy’s brain transmitter box and the boy started being confused about his identity, wondering whether he was a girl and talking about wanting to marry Jose Delgado. He pushed another button, and this behaviour stopped.

… and a recognized university such as McGill was involved in this:

Linda McDonald, went to McGill to be treated for mild post-partum depression from March to early September, 1963. During the course of her hospitalization, she received 102 ECT treatments, using the Paige-Russell technique, in which the button was pushed 6x per treatment, instead of 1x. She also received about 80 days of barbiturate and neuroleptic induced sleep. She was regressed back to incontinence of urine, incontinent of faeces, total disorientation, then sent home. She neuropsychologically pulled out of this over months but couldn’t remember anything from the time she left the hospital back to birth. So this was research in producing specific amnesias and global amnesia.

… then you have to wonder. Only one of these people was ever convicted:

Ewen Cameron, the founder of the World Psychiatric Association, funded through MKULTRA and Human Ecology Foundation by the Canadian military and the CIA, did LSD and other hallucinogen research and was successfully sued – he had already died and the CIA settled out of court with eight of his patients. One of his papers, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry is on Psychic Driving, another was on production of Differential Amnesia in Schizophrenia.

That there was such an infinitesimal number of convictions for such consistent and long-term misbehaviour, that these were feted people with huge reputations, that courts failed to convict, swings the focus over to the legal sector in society, an area which would make this article today way too long.

And it’s not as if there has been no warning.  This page contains quite a few links to articles on the subject, with this sort of thing:

The ideological forerunner of modern psychiatry is experimental psychology, developed by Wilhelm Wundt.

… or in another article:

Psychiatry officially began with its encroachment into the area of medicine, but it’s ideological beginnings are found with 19th century German experimental psychology and Wilhelm Wundt. The word “psychology” originally dealt with the “spirit”, “soul” or “mind”. German psychological theories gradually erased the “mind” until nothing was left except the biological animal part of man. The “being” (mental, spiritual) part of a human being was discarded leaving only the “human” or animal part. This distorted, one-sided and incorrect view of Man has had disastrous consequences for us all.

So we’re back where we started, with the big money backing certain theorists [isn’t it interesting that much of this is German in origin, so geographically close to the Bruderheist which spawned Merkel and so many others] and these theories not only distort the academic area but also eventually subsume and consume it.

Islam

The above youtube, if you can excuse the naff graphic support, raises an important point about the very text of the Koran being an instigator of the Muslim mindset which can not accept “peace”, except in a specific context – have a look at the vid.   Thank you again, Cassandra and I’ve written on this myself here.

The marginalization of counter-opinion

A key component of the propagation of a worldview is that you must negate other worldviews and their proponents.  Thus we return to a highly organized network of people, hijacking expressions such as “freethinker” to vilify and dismiss a truth which has stood the test of time and has never been effectually snuffed out, despite all attempts to this point.

The adoption of highsounding titles such as “enlightenment” is an old ruse, well beloved of statist groups in particular, e.g. the German Democratic Republic or the Soviet paper Pravda [truth].  Thus people who simply do not like the democratic deficit in our country, e.g. The Albion Alliance, are vilified by excrescences like Hain who attempt to smear them as “right-wing extremists” and such like.

Arguing for the right of self-determination for the people of a country, free from government interference, is extremist?  Obviously some of us have a different view of what constitutes an extremist.

The original problem

Coming back to the start of this article, the question was raised:

The worst aspect is that factually erroneous opinions become hardwired into belief, then into the institutionalization of that belief and it takes a revolution, instigated by powerful and monied forces, to eventually turn that on its head.

And do you think that this money is motivated by altruistic, philanthropic concerns or from sectional self-interest, with specific targets?

If one’s own people are locked into induced dumbness and disinterest in what is happening to all bar their hip pocket, when even the interested only read certain available texts, perhaps thousands of texts but all sharing the same worldview, a worldview shaped by their education and their professors who themselves are shaped by funded research, then what hope have a hundred or so isolated, lone voices who beg to differ?

Thus we are perniciously locked into a self-repeating cascade of error, people look about at how nothing seems to be working well and they adopt the explanations offered by the very people, the very thinking behind the genesis of those problems in the first place.

A perfect example is listening to Bernanke or Greenspan on how to solve the financial crisis.

Herein lies our dilemma.

Filed under: Politics & economics, Society & human issues