The education system is inherently corrupt.

submitted by CarlDung from self.200acres

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]CarlDung[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It sounds like your definition of peace is keeping the narrative tightly controlled so that people are brainwashed by the false societal narrative of the ruling class.

Criticizing everything is not a good foundation for society.

She says that we need to shed the false narrative and create one that helps all of us in society flourish.

After deciding what's good for you, stick to it. Isn't that what monoculture is about?

[–]christine_grab 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No, it's about each one of us deciding to make ourselves better people and calling out others when they aren't being fair. The controlling societal narrative should be decided as a collective based on what is good for the whole population and planet. Both historically and currently, society has been all about one group getting into power and exploiting everyone else via that power. They convince the masses to give them this power via the narrative they have constructed. Currently, BLM and ANTIFA are trying to grab the power. While they make many valid points, the majority of their narrative simply isn't accurate -- all white people are not evil who deserve to be exploited. They have made it clear via their narrative their intention is to take power by force are then exploit everyone outside their group. Both of these factions have stated that they intend to rule in the same manner as every other group who has come into power. We need to break that cycle of power grab/exploitation.

Your argument is that a strong narrative control = calm society, but that is not true. Pretending that a cohesive narrative exists doesn't change the reality of the suffering of the people being exploited by the narrative creators. I am a perfect example of this because I am currently fighting back against false government narrative.

I caught the State of CA red-handed running two racketeering schemes: https://saidit.net/s/corruption/comments/2usv/i_have_uncovered_government_corruption_in/ They have been able to get away with it for YEARS via careful narrative control. As you will see in this 11-minute speech I made to the State Controller, I called them out on their bull shit false narrative. The State waived their right of rebuttal, which is a tacit admission of guilt: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=179 While I haven't gotten them to stop the racketeering schemes as of yet. I certainly have made great progress in getting them to change their narrative to be more in line with reality. They added the our principals, our values and our goals section to this webpage as a result of my complaints. They also added this page to their website as a result of my complaints: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/help/disagree-or-resolve-an-issue/taxpayer-advocate-services.html, and they added a few other things, too.

According to your argument, I should have rolled over and let them continue the racketeering scheme because you want them to be allowed to completely control the narrative, even if it is detrimental to me and every other person in CA. No thank you. I want the narrative to reflect reality as it is and I will not stop pushing for that. I have already succeeded in making CA a better place for every taxpayer and I will keep pushing until our government's narrative is in a good place.

[–]CarlDung[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, it's about each one of us deciding to make ourselves better people and calling out others when they aren't being fair.

That sounds a lot like anarchy, and I'm honestly not really convinced it would work in practice.

The controlling societal narrative should be decided as a collective based on what is good for the whole population and planet.

Agreed, but shouldn't there be some restrictions? I can't remember was it Aristotle or Plato who said the problem with democracy is that every good decision requires good judgement, and without developing this sense of good judgement, people would just do bad decision as a collective. The thing is, the few exceptional individuals will drown in the sea of the mindless.

Both historically and currently, society has been all about one group getting into power and exploiting everyone else via that power. They convince the masses to give them this power via the narrative they have constructed.

True, albeit there are better and worse "masters". For me it is hard to see what is the productive outcome of radical emancipation, because that's like theoretical impossibility. People are different, some people just like money for the sake of it, some people just work enough to buy some random things they like to do on their spare time.

Your argument is that a strong narrative control = calm society, but that is not true. Pretending that a cohesive narrative exists doesn't change the reality of the suffering of the people being exploited by the narrative creators. I am a perfect example of this because I am currently fighting back against false government narrative.

One of my friends used to ship CRT-screens and other old electronics to Africa some 20 years ago. At some point, it turned out that people didn't want crt-screens after they had learned about flat screens. It is the same thing with with exploitation. Some people are self sufficient in deciding what's good for them, but some people have to adjust their happiness with the wellbeing of others. I personally don't feel rich, but if I had to compare my life with someone who lives in Africa, I might be.

I mean, how do you decide someone is suffering? How do you assess that someone is no longer exploited? If it is something people can decide for themselves, I'll promise it won't never end.

...racketeering schemes

Governments are as good as the people of the nation, and getting rid of the government just switches the problems of corruption into problems which come with lawlessness and anarchy. You know, originally people had the problem with a catholic church. They said they just confiscate church taxes into their own coffers while holding some perverted occult ceremonies in secret hideouts or whatever. Then the reformation came, and people thought everything would be better. Well, the aristocrats confiscated most of the church properties, and many Nordic states decided to choose reformation, because it gave them lots of extra funds to use. After a while people realized it was not the church which was corrupt, but the aristocrats, nobility, kings and queens etc.

Some people truly thought they would get away with all the problems they associated with monarchy, corrupt bailiffs, power hungry barons etc. Some people believed the society would be better, and more egalitarian with the introduction of democratic system. Now then, people are attacking the police, officials, they say stuff like "anarchy is the answer" or killing off white people would somehow improve their lives. People just don't get it, the power structures are always amalgamation of the central ideas, albeit the average of those. If the societal cohesion is lacking, the officials think for themselves, instead of the good of the nation. This is the problem of multicultural societies, everyone starts to think for themselves, and think this is somehow good. The problem lies in the people, and the deviant behavior they somehow tout as a progress to some direction without understanding that with every structural change their problems have only taken a different form, as the problem was never in the structure, but instead, it is always the people.

[–]christine_grab 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I wanted to add one more thing that we need to educate people on in school: sovereignty. We touch on it a bit with the concept of my rights end where they infringe on your rights, but Americans seem to think that only applies to other individual Americans in select settings and and not understand how the concept applies to society at large. If Americans understood the concept of sovereignty, we would not stand by and allow wars of regime change. There is no way to morally justify bombing or starvation sanctions because we don't like the way another group has chosen to rule over themselves. Those nations are sovereign and can do whatever they want as long as the people within the nation allow it.

[–]CarlDung[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That is a noble creed, but how would that apply to global corporations which defy the legalities and culture of one country? Some countries wouldn't care if they exploit their own people, and by buying their stuff would compromise local businesses which have to pay a living wage for their own workers. To be sure, nations would require to turn into protectionist autarky, which was the common economic policy long time ago. I might be exaggerating a lot, but this is just how it looks from my perspective.

[–]christine_grab 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think your exaggerating. The reason globalism has succeeded in destroying the Earth is because companies that exploit people/resources simply move to whichever country will allow them to do the most exploiting for profit. The key is to get the people within each of these countries to stand up to the corruption and say "No more."