I live in Canada, hence I have a slightly different experience. We are a lot less capitalist up here, we have rather fair education systems. We are given a fair assignment of all sides.

I like the ideas in this thread, but could you please be more specific about the individual EXAMPLES of indoctrination?

I like the ideas in this thread, but could you please be more specific about the individual EXAMPLES of indoctrination?

History repeats itself my friends. Read the Bible to learn the truths of this world and the people in it. But also look to ancient history to learn how the few have always controlled the masses.

In times of antiquity, religion and politics were one and the same. Rulers of state were crowned kings of both the church and the state. Temples for God’s were made in the names of the ruling class. Emperors carved their faces large for the public to gaze at in awe.

Modern democracies use more subtle but equally powerful method of control and manipulation. Today, instead of large buildings with emperor’s names on them we have the largest warships ever created, aircraft carriers, which posses the names of elected presidents on every surface and facet.

Instead of large paintings on tallest walls in the center of every city depicting the president, like dictators do, we instead are careful to constantly show our elected leaders speaking to the public on television at least once every hour, rotating channel by channel. Hillary or Bush on 3, then 5, then channel 10 every time you turn around.

Our leaders only speak to the masses from up on high whenever possible. Only when they are looking at the devastation of a hurricane or other natural disaster are they shown walking on the bare dirt, like the common man.

Always, our leaders will wear the suited robes of leadership and status. The infamous almost, but not quite, black suit with red power tie and carefully place patriot flag pin adorns the “representative.”

“Senator”, so-in-so, they are always called before the masses. Never would they stoop to being called “Bob” or “Jim” unless they’re back to touring the devastation of the downtrodden during some tragic natural event.

Yes my friends, the game is still the same. It is just the names and titles that change.

So next time you see your elected representative face to face, make a quick joke and call them “King” So-in-so, instead of whatever title we now give them. Then sit back and watch your representative foolishly laugh with gleeful pride as he or she relishes in the jokes inner truths and mournful realities. For they have forgotten not to laugh at being called a “King”. For in times gone past, no representative would be caught laughing at the notion of being aligned with the almost always despotic and negative term “King.” But today, the people have forgotten from whence we came, and so, the sickness of lordship reigns once more upon the masses.

"Who controls our children ?" :

Google Video Link

[edit on 10-3-2008 by pai mei]

Originally posted by thetruth777
And, face it, if YOU didn't go to school, you couldn't count, read, write, type, OR POST ON ATS!!!!!

Maybe I don't get your point here, but don't forget that the system requires that people are able to do these basic things in order to keep it ticking over. Our being able to read, write and type can be vital in building wealth for the elite, but doesn't necessarily mean that we are knowledgable or taught with the correct priorities in mind.

Regarding the OP, here's an example:
At my school, we said prayer at school assembly. I was a staunch atheist at the time and refused to bow my head or say 'amen'. I suppose in hindsight, this was a little bit reactionary and childish. Nevertheless, on the occassions it was noticed I hadn't participated in prayer, I was reprimanded, despite the fact that my school was never associated with church or religion in any way.

My opinions reflect one of the earlier posters. Our teachers aren't given enough time, money or freedom to impart real knowledge. They hurry through curriculum guides to meet targets. I learnt little of value at school and have learnt far more through self-study. For this reason, if I ever have kids, I'll be home-schooling them (at least partially).

Also, this whole idea of every-pupil-must-follow-every-subject idea is counter-productive. We all have different strengths and weaknesses and it needs to be identified much earlier what those are. In this way, we can dedicate more time to learning the subjects we are particularly apt in. Forcing every child to learn everything equally right up to young adulthood nurtures the concept that we are all exactly the same and we should all fight for the same mundane drone work careers.

One of my friends, in an attempt to calm me down when I was stressed over the fact that my public school education had only taught me how to BS my way through life, gave me a quote I will never forget: "Relax, darling, the world was made for the lowest common denominator to function!" And she was right.

I just posted on this over at the thread from the OP on 3 Mar, but I'll join in discussion here, since I find this topic vastly important.

The US system isn't about teaching people to think: it's about teaching the basics to the lowest common denominator. And as several members have stated, teachers today can only afford to teach to the lowest common denominator, in order to boost test scores, in order that the school can continue to receive funding. It is an unfortunately competitive system for something which ideally would bring about awareness and enlightenment. Instead, it--well, it mostly teaches people to BS their way through life, or to shoot to a certain goal of mediocre achievement.

A serious problem is also in the grading/testing approach--to attempt to quantify achievement and comprehension by way of standardized testing. Once again, a student who is good at expressing themselves may try very little and then set the grading curve, while a student who puts in a lot of work but is ultimately less capable of self-expression may fail because of that grading curve, or because of errors in spelling/grammar/citation. The only real way to change this is of course to have much smaller class sizes, where students can be appropriately challenged and aided by their teacher. But because of the miserable state of funding, and because of the pressures for "achievement", none but charter or private schools are able to do such a thing.

I really don't think the fault lies with the teachers though (well, most teachers at least). I mean, people don't go into teaching to make money. It's really a matter of the system that is imposed upon the teachers, and thus the students, by the school districts and eventually by the US gov't.

I recently read a study (in some terrible trashy woman's mag, I don't remember which, I was in a waiting room) that said that students of upper middle class families whose parents choose to send their children to underachieving schools, however, tend to be the highest achievers in those schools. Part of this, the study said, may be based on good support from the family (always a key in proper child education) but part of this may be due to the fact that students who are thought to be able to achieve more are singled out by teachers in order to boost the overall learning curve, and therefore they do achieve more, while at the same time taking attention away from other students who probably need it more because they lack familial support.

And on the topic of AP classes--while I did take every course I could while I was in high school, I don't feel they did any better than a regular course in teaching a student to think--in fact, I almost feel they were worse because they were specifically about taking a test. I remember one of the teachers going into very specific detail about the format and mechanics of the test, and I was so psyched out by the experience that I ended up metathinking the whole test and only walked away with at three because I'd been made so paranoid about the experience. On the other hand, I took a test for which I had been offered no instruction and walked away with a five because I know how to analyze a question and write on it.

my first day of school was an intoduction to an old lady principal who took a bamboo can to my back 55 years ago and of which i still have the scars------from that moment on i was determined that they wouldn't be able to teach me a thing and that i would do all i could to defy the system or destroy it.

i still have no use for the"academic"school system that just wants to turn out clones of itself instead of trying to teach you how to think for yourself using your own talents in a sensible manner to earn a living with.

Originally posted by thetruth777
I know for a fact that governments use public education and MSM to shape public opinion. But how EXACTLY do schools and media bring about the "sheeple mob mentality"?

Well, look at it this way. Of course the educational system uses a relatively standardized system to teach little kids what they need to know about the world, and along with that stuff there's a lot of opinion presented as fact. Maybe you don't agree with some of that opinion as fact. Which is fine.

But riddle me this, Batman. If they're so intent on brainwashing little kids to see things their way, how is it that you escaped it? How is it that you learned to question authority? Is it that you're such an incredible genius that you managed by force of your superior mind to cast off the brainwashing?

Or... maybe there is actually a fair amount of instruction built into the public school system that teaches kids (when they're old enough) to think critically and question many of the things they're taught. Of course, that can't be the primary focus. You can't get very far by constantly undermining your own curriculum. But maybe there's less indoctrination and more free thinking encouraged than might first be obvious.

From day one schools teach regimentation, conformity and obedience to arbitrary rule. Students are given an ID (SIMS) number and put through metal detectors. They are subject to arbitrary search and seizure of their lockers, bookbags and bodies. They suffer enormous pressure to conform to the dress and attitudes of their classmates. Academic achievement is considered shameful; the rule is to dissolve your identity into the mass- you dare not distinguish yourself by exceptional performance. Highly intelligent students are treated with animosity by students and teachers alike. The school system claims rights over children under the principle "in loco parentis", a phrase I heard continually when I was in public school in the 70s and 80s. The school states it is acting in the place of the parent, a true and accurate claim, since one of the first subtle lessons I picked up at school was that parents were backwards provincials and the school was there to save me from the burden of my parents' ignorance. The whole point of school is to make you think you are educated enough that you never seek beyond what you've been taught or question it. You are trained to be a faceless drone, reacting to bells and buzzers and to parrot back "facts". The goal is to make you compliant, passive and to believe it is all for your own good. As long as you do what you are told you'll be OK.

Originally posted by rourke
The goal is to make you compliant, passive and to believe it is all for your own good. As long as you do what you are told you'll be OK.

And yet it seems to have failed in your case. So I must assume that you are a superior person, they did a bad job in your case, or that maybe you're wrong.

If you are a superior person, then I guess we don't need to worry about the indoctrination because superior people will be immune to it, while it might be a good thing for the average lunkhead.

If they did a bad job, then we can rest comfortably that they are imperfect and that there will always be freethinkers who sneak through the cracks. Maybe some average dopes will become something other than average.

If you're wrong, and it turns out that the school system does have enough internal checks and balances, what with teaching students to be critical even of the things taught by the school itself, then again we have nothing to worry about. Everything is working as it should. The bulk, average student is learning to properly obey and not run amok. And enough students will find their way to keep the checks and balances in place.

I'm not really seeing a huge problem in any of these scenarios. The only real problem I see is if you think every single student should be a freethinking iconoclast and rule breaker. Is that what you're suggesting? Because it's my opinion that the average Joe and Jane Blow need and actually desire structure. They want simple rules then can follow and not think about it. They want consistency and normality so they can live their lives, have their kids, and not have to constantly struggle with a fluctuating philosophical void.

Would you deny them this, just so you could be recognized for your own superior enlightenment?

Repost, my bad

[edit on 16-3-2008 by Hot_Wings]

Because it's my opinion that the average Joe and Jane Blow need and actually desire structure. They want simple rules then can follow and not think about it. They want consistency and normality so they can live their lives, have their kids, and not have to constantly struggle with a fluctuating philosophical void.

I think this statement is the best example that I have seen yet on this forum of the pervasive and controlling ideas of the so called elite educators in America and Europe. Notice the tone of this statement. Firstly, the educated classify themselves as above others. This poster constantly asserts that other posters must see themselves as “smarter” or “better” than the average person because they have somehow escaped the sheeple herding indoctrination training.

You see, when you classify everyone below yourself, as this poster does, then you begin to rationalize evil the way that he does. The “average” person doesn’t need to be taught to think, so he claims. After all, he claims that the “average” people don’t really want or need to anyway. They obviously need the smart people to tell them what to do and how to live their lives, which, by this poster is obviously work a menial job and raise more “average” kids for slave labor for the “smart” people.

There is only one truth, not 4 or 5. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You see, to the “educated” it’s not really about what’s really best for people. It’s really about what really best for the “educated”, which is why the so called educated must constantly classify themselves as separate and above other people.

It’s all just really about greed, money, and power. The “educated” use the information that they have gathered about various fields of endeavor to steal the qualities of life from others by skillful manipulation of the systems of control. Just read any of the classic texts from antiquity and you will see this truth presented over time. For example, Aristotle stated in his often touted book, Politics, the follow about accumulating wealth.

“The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.”

But this statement is a misdirection and a lie. Aristotle goes on to say that the best method of gaining wealth is in animal husbandry (the raising of farm animals). Aristotle is lying to the public. You see, this book was written for the masses. This book was not intended for the nobility and the elite. Aristotle is claiming that being a laborer is the best way to get rich and completely ignores banking. It is unnatural and so he simply avoids the topic altogether. Banking and finance are the best means of getting wealthy. Animal husbandry was necessary for the wealth of the state and for a good banking system. Aristotle was telling the masses to raise animals and ignore banking so that the masses would produce numerous goods and avoid finance and so the bankers could profit greatly from the uneducated masses raising animals like mad and flooding the market with goods for sale. Basically a strong economy means many loans from banks.

Guess what my friends, things are no different today. No one teaches banking and finance in public education. This would be foolish to let out the real secret that elite use to get their wealth without ever getting their hands dirty in the mud.

Instead, they simply want you to hand over your hard earned money to the pillars of finance so they can use it to get rich and throw you a bone in the process if they make a ton of money and if they lose it all, then oh well, its your loss and not theirs. They want you to work in the factory and give your money to them, the smart people who learned finance, so they can use it to loan out to some other factory worker and get rich just by sitting behind a desk.

The educated have always hoodwinked the masses and our modern society is no different.

There are many ways in which the education system of a country can be seen to indoctrinate youth. For example it has been suggested that the streaming of children into different sets or levels in school prepares them for the seperation of people into social classes in later life. This is just one example from a plethora that various sociologists have studied.

The end result is that an individual is incapable of exercising independent or unique thought, thereby creating servile, banal individuals who are easily manipulated.

It is however possible that it is the primary form of socialisation, the family, that is the main cause of the creation of servile individuals, as from birth a child is taught not to question authority, firstly in the form of the child's parents.

Slightly off-topic there but I am merely stating that there are various factors that mould the development of a person and can cause them to be excessively servile and thereby maintain the current organisation of society.