Old World Order

                                                                  Thurston’s Thoughts

The Untouchables

Old World Order

The Global Imperialistic Monarchy and Dictatorial Ideology of Old is a moral and tyrannical absolutism that does not allow for the possibility of error, dissent, or critical analysis. The primary axis of our existence rotates on these principles, beliefs, and indoctrinations. Serious contemplation reveals a consolidated fundamental integration of indoctrinations incorporating the fragmentation of a vast sea of miscellaneous disjointed beliefs.

They all go along to get along because they have the same consolidated purpose, control by voluntary subjugation. Ice cream in any flavor is still ice cream seducing according to your palate or appetite. All things arriving at the same destination by any road or method including magic carpet ride concludes at the same end point or intent. But so does ignorance, cowardice, and capitulation. Many times we don’t want to know the answer and many more times we fail to seek it. Mostly we simply accept the answer we have been told.

The Bible states “God forgives ignorance because we cannot believe what we do not know”. How can we be accountable for what we do not know? But, should we be accountable for what we don’t want to know? Conversely, I submit what about what we wholeheartedly believe which we do not know or, more pointedly, what we know but reject because of what we have been told to obediently believe? Can this be obedience to ignorance or ignorance to obedience?

The polarity of truth must provide for a sliver of possibility however remote. Like the man said where there is doubt there is no doubt. Therefore, knowledge must be sought by the inquisitively clever for the knowledgeable to obtain it. Be ever mindful that knowledge above all has always been forbidden. Knowledge is the destination rewarding those whose journey braves the perseverance, perils, condemnations, and exiles to not only know it but to speak it.

Plato’s Cave in a metaphysical context of ideology represents the constraints of our mind limited by the conditioning of our perception rejecting the realization of an expansion beyond a conditioned boundary. Just as “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge, because they have rejected it”. We are also controlled by our “sinful ignorance” to accept the comfort of being told and led as opposed to discovery by examination.

The Polly wants a cracker parroting of spiritual and intellectual illiteracy without hesitancy adds water and stirs the corrupted intentions of absolutism by submission. Such is the shepherds of deception herding the sheep of zombified groupies in need of forgiveness for they know not to what they are faithful. This global cult of ignorance worship a BDSM paradigm of punishment desensitization for deviant behavior from prescribed protocols.

In other words, beaten into submission by the conformity of social constructs which defy logic, humanity, and nature. It is a reason the driver’s seat and steering wheel are not faced towards the rear. We have already seen where we have been but must be vigilant about where we are headed as a species. The rearview mirror is a fraction of the size of the windshield according to the significance of each’s vision. Prisoners of the ideological past cannot be pioneers of the future.

The mushroom of time is an expansion of contractions where exact patterns can never be repeated, maybe by occurrence but not by time and space. Same appearance and application, different space in time, but a mutually adjusted calculation for the differences created by time’s ramifications and the Butterfly Effect’s compounded revelations. This accounts for the fluctuations needed to fabricate conclusions by faith, belief, programming, or coercion.

A cow may be free to roam the pastures giving the appearance of freedom but the reality of confinement branded by the ideology of its owner. The global constructs of society expanded to the connectivity of humanity is unevenly yoked to sustain conflict and separation by the smoke and mirrors of conquest instilling mass hallucinations of subjective morality based on purpose, cajolery, or power.

Our branded minds succumb to religion, politics, class, gender, race, greed, manipulation, and geography roaming the pastures of subjugation grazing on the circumstances and predispositions we are fed. The politics of economics is by government or perhaps the government’s politics is economics, either way each requires complicity and ignorance. For example, people evaluate their leaders by their economies and the economic wellbeing of the people.

It is a savior’s mentality or victimization liberator attributed to a deliverer with us oblivious to other factors galvanized by a previous crescendo of inevitabilities. The seesaw’s motion is only balanced in passing towards its extremities of up and down. The natural inclination of time is change, of cause is effect, and of expectation is disappointment. Rain falls as a necessity and so does societies and economies as a result of the atrophy of prosperity.

During times of fiscal depression does money evaporate into losses or to the coffers of a formulated enrichment back to the origins of their disbursement. The roulette of economics are played at the casino of governments regulated by the Central Banks of forbidden anonymity. Everyone who is someone has a Central Bank regulating their economy, a private corporation that never loses.

We never blame our antiquated systems, unfounded veracities, or mercenary propensities but instead rely on our lethargic understandings targeting the easiest and most accessible lightening rods of our discontent. We must have someone to blame when there is no mirror to show the reflection of the one at fault whether individual, nation, policy, or what have you. The perjury of commonsense renders a mistrial of validation detached from the sworn testimony of history.

We are modern day stone-age flintstones following a bedrock of deception torn right out of history. Word of mouth is most often deceit of ears and apathy of discernment captivating the mind by attrition of reasoning. You can only stand on business when you are standing on knowledge. If you believe and propagate, mustn’t you verify? Tell the truth and shame the Devil but tell a lie pleases who, God?

The atrocities of mass hysteria and concentrated psychological abandonment of inhibitions and humanity often ignited by anger shields the ambiguity of ulterior motives placing the masses on the Demon time of concession. The absorbed forfeiture of perspective and arbitration of facts ricochets most accountability on the prey away from the predator. This Nostradamus of devious breath exhales the prognostications of oppression, exploitation, and inhumanity.

The dead beat authoritarian  alimony of morality or adolescent obligated provisions from subjugation’s accountability is beamed up by Scotty and transported to the bosom of Abraham claiming the moral peak of justification. The chastity belt of self-righteousness prevents the intercourse of compassion and culpability. The weeping willow thrashes in the storm but rejoices in its resiliency assured this too will pass.

So the youth must balance obedience to the past with their obligation to their future. Old heads live in the past, the youth live in the future, but we meet in the present. The future is theirs as the past has been ours. Discard the old skins of antiquated ideologies to receive the expansion of new wines of possibilities forsaking vengeance, nearsightedness, and the genocide of valor.

The monarchial illuminati of social hierarchy and dehumanization strut of arrogance must give way to an escalation in conscientious reflection or condemnation of method relieving the constipation of civilization. Trading places soils the undergarments agitating the self-loathing incontinence of oppression when mutated inwardly but promoted outwardly. The rock and roll of struggle with the bull’s horns of deceit sounds the disharmony of belief, actions, and justifications.

We revere technological advancement while neglecting human development perpetuating sociologies, ideologies, and indoctrinations as relics of dubious distinction and probabilities. The untouchables of the Old World Order rolling loaded dice leaves baby still needing a new pair of shoes with us staring at snake eyes losing our humanity. The youth must lead a Future World Order abdicating the inheritance of ignorance, exploitation, and oppression.

Censor Yourself First



Termination Restrained

We are witnessing life imitating art. Remember the Terminator sequel, a cyborg destroyer, was sent back in time to protect the catalyst for change in the future by defending the movement from being destroyed in its infancy and development.

So likewise, freedom of speech and open exchange of ideas has become John Connor, the endangered crusader in need of protection with future survival hanging in the balance. Never mind, sticks and stones make break your bones, now freedom of speech, exchange of dissenting ideas, and exercise of liberties will hurt you.

The advancement of HUMANITY has and will always depend on an exchange of ideas and perspectives, with the ability to freely and theoretically discuss them. This dialogue must be expressed, exchanged, or challenged to become validated.

It can not be imposed by fear or censorship; otherwise, it becomes oppressive, suffocating logical reasoning. As a result, the fragility of thoughts has regressed into hearing no evil and thinking no evil, not allowing for the concept of evil to be a moral judgment, not logical reasoning.  Changing the judgment changes the moral code or conclusion and expectations of adherence. It is entirely subjective and prone to fluctuate by interpreter and interpretation.

The fragility to not tolerate voicing our differences of perspectives or the right to choose them most likely violates the circumstances and assertions regarding the process and mechanism used to establish them. The process is the supreme principle of establishing, accepting, and maintaining these concepts and resulting liberties. It is to convince by persuasion, not the denial of expression.

At the initiation of this republic, it was deemed essential that freedom of religion, speech, and the press was the cornerstone and foundational concept reflected in and by the Bill of Rights. So vital that it is the first amendment established.  Notwithstanding its imperfect observation and practice at times, it has repeatedly overcome the fragility of mind and spirit by being a statutory aspiration.

This is the genesis of all distinctions, designations, and categorizations of every demographic of population or integration of acceptance. The accommodation of freedom of speech has led to and will lead to any transformational variations of principle, tolerance,  or thought.

The bitter must sometimes be taken with the sweet with allowances tolerated. Just as it has aided in converting benefits favorable to you, the process must also lend itself to benefits complimentary to another.

Its suppression prevents future progress and undermines past ones. From ancient times philosophers and stoics recognized the importance of free exchange of ideas and philosophies even at the risk of being offended. 

They suggest that the exchange is more important than an insulting delivery. The delivery reflects the deliverer, not the message. The message can be evaluated and separated upon its merit from the messenger’s rudeness.

So the message is of primary importance, not a feeling of insult or indignation. Often these emotional sentiments are more telling on the offended than the offender. It might be a matter of perception or self-image, not of intent. 

There are actual instances of disrespect and insult in the conveyance of a message that should be rebuked. However, devoid of this or an overt affront conveyed, the perspective cannot be offensive because it requires an intellectual evaluation, not an emotional response.

The counterattack to any insult is the same weapon chosen to deliver it, in this case, a verbal response if needed. Surely the sting of a venomous comment can be met with one exceedingly cruel, but this descends into an exchange of insults, not dialogue. 

Is it a battle of wits or insults? None should be taken if no insult was intended, even if the perspective is repugnant when willingly engaged. The ability to absorb, decipher, and navigate conversations and ideas resists the lure of ignorant or emotional engagement.

The prevailing cancel culture to force others to denounce at your insistence or for your sensitivities is counter to freedom of speech and choice. It is further an individual decision even if collectively engaged. It should be by voluntary means of personal sensibilities being offended or supported.

The sum of those offended then constitutes a collective. If force is the instrument of choice, then it should not be the shield as well. These should be simple instances where you are not in agreement and have the discretion not to support or participate while not forcing others’ allegiance.

The cognitive dissonance of the acceptability and dissemination of contrary ideas that reflects inconsistencies defeat their foundational merit by default for lack of continuity and subjective application. It is outrageous to force acceptability of your position on others who may disagree but then bellyache about accepting theirs being forced upon you.

Suppose an exchange or perspective has no constructive control or impending damage. What power does it really possess other than the power you surrender. Why make it more than the musings of a self-declaring fool? 

Conversely, succumbing to them gives the appearance of resemblance and validation. Either you stand on your spot with conviction, entering the fray boldly or wither under the first cloud of dissension. Still, either way, you declare your position, not on your idea but your right to the freedom of it.

Make your freedom of speech something that must be wrestled from you, not surrendered for lack of fortitude. This is the ying and yang of discretion, both using it or suppressing it. Either way, it bears consequences, and you must make a decision which way is preferable. Whining is not allowed for either using it, refusing to use it, or others refusing or using theirs. Whatever benefit or consequences are yours or theirs individually, only becoming collectively by accumulation.

Applying the metaphysical philosophy of Plato, freedom of speech is self-evident beyond questioning but becomes meaningless if restricted and untested. Freedom of expression is paramount to understanding and being understood. It facilitates persuasion as a concept of certitude, revealing its validity beyond emotional or sensory perceptions measured by the quality of its intellectual proposition.

Any emotional meltdown is an admission to an incapacity to function outside your emotions when triggered. A rejection of responding to the message as thought but instead anger or rage facilitates stagnation discouraging resolution.

Imagine being in a relationship where there are severe limitations on the extent of disputed discussions, where silencing of expression is required. The natural inclination would be to wonder why disagreement results in submitting as if confronted by a standard-bearer above reproach and reasoning. It invites more dysfunction than to evaluate it and discard it as insignificant or feeble.

Suppression exaggerates resistance to resolution. Regulation reveals your limitation on your thought process as a governing element to prevent challenge or invalidation. There is a direct correlation between the measure and extent of our emotions and understanding. It not only limits us but gives us expectations of conformity from others because you think or did so, insisting others should too.

The recent controversies of Dave Chappelle, Kyrie Irving, abortion rights, sexual identifications, and violence come to mind. These contemporary issues reflect the dichotomy of freedom of speech, freedom to exercise well-established liberties, restrictions of choices by someone else’s determination, and unfiltered behavioral influences.

Each has its entrenched supporters and detractors, which I will not challenge. However, I will examine the discrepancies of contention pertaining to the restriction of freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and quite frankly sanctioned by humanity.

Let’s start with the premise that everyone has one, not two, not yours and mine, just yours. With that said, I have not seen Dave Chappelle’s special, so I speak from a conceptual application of the freedom of speech. Unfortunately, censure has claimed many a victim of late, and the list continues to grow. As I understand it, he offended the LBGTQ+ community and some who identify outside the traditional realms of gender classification. 

Gender classifications are the symptoms of a different offense restricting the autonomy to self-identify. But, freedom of speech and recognition of liberties have progressed this cause, and changes are enjoyed now despite having more terrain to travel. However, acceptance is growing, and assimilation seems to be the goal now, where these isolating distinctions are no longer considerations.

It should not be taboo to comment on or criticize any segment of society as an exempt group protected because it may have the opposite effect of the intended protections. It may generate resentment and prolonged acceptance. It must be judged by the content and context, not the manner. The content can be rejected, refuted, or evaluated. It is not what you say but how you say it. Likewise often it is not what you do but how you do it that is offensive.

Every segment of society is a member of multiple subgroups that don’t raise condemnation when mentioned. Is it the level of acceptability at play instead of the content or context? Why can’t others outside any subgroup not be allowed to speak as those within it think without offense being taken?

To continue these labels of sexual orientation, race, gender, or other categorizations, perpetuate distinctions and separation. It also psychologically impairs and exaggerates the differences when they should be of no significance. Without these identifiers, what distinctions can be made?

These outrages to references with expectations of exemption keeps it isolated from other subgroups. Why must all Americans have a secondary ethnic classification by ancestry? Even with religion, it helps with the divisions that have no practical bearings but separation or discrimination. 

Not feeling what someone said is the price of freedom of speech since if any of us talk long enough, we are bound to rub someone the wrong way, even if by simply claiming our rights. Ironically, rights that others readily claim. 

Theoretically, denial of others’ freedom of speech diminishes yours by contrast and context. It is bound to restrict some subgroup that applies to you or yours. By context, content, and contrast, how damaging could Chappelle’s words really have been compared to obstacles overcome in the past?

Because he spoke them, does that make them accurate or applicable to you as a group or individual? It would appear that feelings maybe were hurt, but how by someone who doesn’t know you?

Perhaps, his comments relied on you including yourself in the disparage it implied for it to be offensive. Not to justify or make excuses for his words. That’s left up to him. However, his right to say it is protected by his commitment to speak freely under his liberties.

I am sure he also spoke in ways that other subjective groups may have felt some kind of way about, which did not offend you. You may have even found it funny. It was a comedy show, and uncomfortable topics by definition and expectation should be anticipated. Talking about wives may have been offensive to wives, I don’t know. 

Suppose you or your subgroup found whatever comment offensive. In that case, that is fine, but expecting others who were not offended to be a force to uphold your offense is contrary to your goal of acceptance by comparison. However, if some would like to support your position voluntarily, that is fine too. If not, you have to be comfortable with that being your hill to climb. 

The Kyrie Irving situation has a slightly different nuance regarding actions or, more specifically, inaction. Still,  understandably, the temperature runs high when it comes to vaccination. Due to the loss of lives, risk of infection, and fear of contagion, as well as the complications and implications on vulnerable loved ones and family members, the concern is legitimate.

Despite these concerns, we must ask ourselves if our fears supersede his right of choice. Clearly stated is the ramification of his course of inaction. It may be governed by his conviction or even the color of his shirt; nevertheless, it is his choice and his right. He is far from alone in his resistance to the vaccine. He is also notoriously vilified based on the venue since a different location would produce no sanction. 

 If the sentiments against the unvaccinated are so high and crucial, why is it not mandatory or universally applied regardless of location? I doubt if freedom of choice is the reason for voluntary compliance. But seemingly because of politics, for and against, since many other vaccines and requirements are mandatory for the wellbeing of society or for participation.

Denial of participation seems fair to preserve freedom of choice. You absolutely can choose as you please, but that does not transcend the right to participate. Participation is a criterion of eligibility according to the requirements and standards set forth being met.

A driver’s license to drive, a license for certain professions, and so forth operate under the same principle and acknowledgment of requirements to be met. By choosing not to comply, you also select not to participate but still maintain your right of refusal.

The vaccinated exercised our right just as he is exercising his. Still, the opposition is in his choice, which is different from ours. I cannot overstate that I am not an anti-vaxxer, just as I cannot understate that it is his right to choose as he pleases.

What he does for a living, the chance to win a championship, or the money forfeited as the driving persuasion to comply when pressured by others is not freedom of choice but external validation and compulsion by bounty. Yet, others may deem these considerations to be irresistible.

Still, is it not commendable that Irving stands in adversity unwavering against others’ judgment about his right. Many may think it is selfish or foolish, and it may be both, but it’s his consequences to shoulder. So, consider, can another’s disappointment in your choices anoint them the captain of your ship and theirs.

As a contrary examination, what if he were in the majority and you were scorched for getting vaccinated? Would you let others’ opinions sway you to go unvaccinated? Many claimed to have been forced, but you chose to concede unless you were tied and highjacked.

Anger from his failure to surrender where others have been compromised by their own declaration of concession still is not sufficient provocation for him to follow. Besides, you condemn yourself for lack of conviction if you truly oppose the vaccine but relented. 

What other pressures or compliance are you susceptible to when avoiding discomforting consequences before it really gets thick? It seems Irving’s refusal to knuckle under is the underlying issue with echos of how dare he? You chose your consequences of preference, him his.

Now let Irving confront his, least of which is being sidelined. The principled person would rather lose their head than their conviction, according to Socrates and Epictetus. So his dignity remains intact even if he decides to take the vaccine for reasons other than force.

Related to the subject of vaccines and choices is the abortion issue again. I am pro-life but pro-choice, understanding that it is not within my quarry to dictate the decisions regarding another’s body and personal expectations. 

It is absolutely not a deliberation I feel the authority to dictate as a man imposing my restrictions on women. Since a woman is a vessel by which birth is produced by the preponderance of the burden, contrasted by just sperm donation, these decisions should be left among them to decide.

I equate this question to the vaccine dilemma where choosing what you use your body to facilitate is your choice. How can an anti-vaxxer who is opposed to being dictated to what they must subject their body to manage to be anti-choice regarding abortion? 

It is the same question in principle of supreme authority over your body. Weigh the shot against forced childbirth and child-rearing for life and tell me which one is more demanding, restrictive, and uncertain.

If the sanctity of your body is your right, how can theirs not be also? We are still talking about bodies that are capable of making decisions. Since the unborn child can not make the decision, the logic is it must be made to protect them. Protection then becomes the primary. So, should you be vaccinated to protect yourself and others, assuming the primary standard is protection?

The preserving element is choice, not the protection of controlling interest. If vaccinated, you still chose what you do with your body. Your body should be your choice and not others’ selective protection or enforcement of this right, certainly not suppression of it. Furthermore, once these mandates are imposed and the child is born, where is the consistency of commitment.

 What about the lack of adoptions, given the vast anti-abortion elements which could easily practice what they preach? Where is the assistance and relief by those who are comfortable with their situation unconcerned about the struggles forced upon someone else?

Imagine your nonexistent right to infringe and impose your will, then where is your real responsibility after getting your imposition? But, again, I am not advocating abortion, just choice. I am just questioning the discord between mandate, support, imposed determinations, and unintended consequences.

This leads me to intended consequences and unfiltered suggestions regarding sexuality. If anyone’s sexuality is exclusively their business, then why are there so many public declarations and assumptions? If the desire is to make it commonly accepted, then it would seem that these distinctions and proclamations would be counterproductive, your orientation being nothing unusual.

The consensus is that it is immaterial to most except for who you are getting down? Considering the persecuted twentieth century, the relief and celebration welcoming alternative labels are understandable, but the choice is normal. Encouraging personal acceptance of your sexuality exiting the closet of concealment resisting exterior discriminations is the empowerment of courage despite depictions of others’ intolerances.

The movement for acceptance and recognition of same-sex, alternative non-traditional options, and non-binary identifications reflects the progress made and recognition deserved as just as normal as any other identification. These varied influences need to be available for encouragement and bonding with its portrayal to release the taboo of concealment.

This courage can be promoted by not having undue challenges to undermine it. Allowing for the benefit of interpretation to distinguish many choices encourages freedom when making any choice. Whatever the decision, your preference should be supported if the same standard afforded others are used by you. Remember, the standard for choice is the primary element, not the selection.

But, to sincerely be commonplace, the distinction should not be uncommon or unusual, but just another accepted available option. Thus, a new day has dawned where a third rail of acceptance includes self-determining identities and sexualities without discredit. It is important that role models and identifiable reflections of the human spectrum represent a diversity of normalizations and their possibilities. 

Of course, any subgroup of identification and beyond has its critics and unique characteristics. Still, one subgroup’s influence is not more significant to the others, especially if not a member. To be different is not the right to impose on the other subgroups but to have freedom within your own and not be infringed on by others. The opposite must be observed as well.

Objective acceptance is the goal, not subjective compulsion. The freedom to choose from neutral influences of autonomy and acceptance without persecution, not judging or being subjected to judgment. The resistance is to oppose being classified and coerced into an unwanted classification not descriptive of your identity, right, or choice. Just respected, not as a sexual designation but as a human one. 

It is a question of having an identity or actual choice which is unassailable even if outside others’ preferences. Without undue influence or intolerances, unapologetically free to choose or be, having all options an equitable decision respected without criticism. Beyond acceptance, it is a demand for respect, respect for your identity.

Never above, never below, but always equal. I have carefully explained the distinctions of my perspective to contextualize that it is about freedom of expression, not the actual expression.

My point is the sexualization and promotion of all general subgroups of self-identification and sexual orientations seem to direct unfiltered influence on children at inappropriate ages. This portrayal has been traditional and untraditional.

Traditional breeds discrimination while untraditional invites shattering perceptions, but both produce resistance to change. Change is the fear from the expansion of definitions of conformity. It exposes the feat to let be and to be. Within this struggle is the portrayal of influence for survival and acceptance of subjective preferences. This includes music and media content, dress code, suggestive dancing, explicit language, and other reckless indulgences.

The sexuality and sexualization among adults should remain there and not be directed at or exposed to children intentionally or subliminally. Not subjected beyond the demonstration of their awareness or curiosities organically influenced from within themselves. 

The sexualization of cartoons and comic books can be argued they demonstrate and support identity, not encourage particular dispositions. Still, there are residual consequences to that assumption, whose premise is if that should be their focus at such early ages. Age-appropriate behavior and exposure is the overriding concern and influence. I think we can agree that smoking, drinking, or porn is unquestionably inappropriate indulgences for small children and young teens.

However, what exposures are they otherwise permitted that are insidious and cloaked programming but just as harmful as to impressionable young psyches. It reduces the shock and heightens the chances of their involvement at ever-decreasing ages despite the laws and social propagation contrary to this expectation.

The concern is whether it does more good or damage from a child’s perspective. The lesser evil must be chosen, which is not universal as awareness and development vary but generally apply. Remember, most early behavior is imitation and impersonation of exposures. 

The orientation to any explicitly implied sexuality seems like early initiation into participation, trafficking, or exploitation. The same is true of the violence desensitizing mechanisms lessening self-control and making violent responses compelling default reactions without remorse, willful restraint, or consideration but conditioned.

Neuropathways indoctrinated by the constant bombardment of war games and violence-enhancing entertainment evokes responses to reality indistinguishably from games. This brainwashing produces aggressive, destructive tendencies. The hostility in our young people is according to their intentionally programmed code of violence and our historical demonstration. They respond largely as programmed or taught as the default from which other decisions are made.

The inducing proliferation of violent and sexual influences now appears to blur the lines of acceptable behavior by children and towards children. It is a thin line getting thinner whose violation and validation are routinely reinforced.

This can not lead to beneficial developments. Instead, it indicates an unfiltered stimulation of influences encouraging violent impulses, sexual misconceptions and disrespect, and propensity for danger-inducing behavior at younger ages.

The issues mentioned on the surface appear different but, at their core, are identical. These distinctions, designations, and classifications conditioned, coerced, and expressed are remnants of control for the division and quest for hierarchy, manipulation, and validation.

Elimination of these titles and characterizations of subversive origins would lessen the need to champion resistance against them or suppress others. As a result, some expressions or suppressions create exploitation of advantages while others vulnerabilities.

The assault is misdirected, manipulated, and subliminal. It seems the primary intent is the promotion of influences diminishing unregulated individuality, installing replication of perspective by either outrage, indoctrination, or association.

Opposite ends of the same spectrum ensnaring all within its survey producing predictable simulations for narrowing behaviors and socialization. Essentially defining and shrinking the parameters by the illusion of expansion camouflaging salacious inspirations and obstructions reducing liberties.

The flip side is there are acceptable constraints on freedom of speech and expression that should be observed and complied with whose regulations specify the manner and context of each. Don’t yell fire in a crowded theater and other common-sense measures or forbidden outbursts. Thus, observance of general boundaries is recommended.

It should be balanced for the social good, no malicious intent, situationally appropriate, measured for harm, not incite violence or hate as its objective, and permit challenges. Direct and indirect implications must be considered. A dubious manner of delivery and awkward context should be contested but not content or choice. Content invites debate, discovery, understanding, and progress

These questions and perspectives risk offending the restrictive mind refusing to expand by exposure to concepts contrary to embedded perceptions. Similarly, new wine must be placed in a new pouch to accommodate its expansion. New perspectives expand the mind necessitating expanded capacity and tolerance, not to agree but to understand. These freedoms commented on extends vicariously to many other issues and applications of freedom and tolerances.

Protection of freedom of speech without censure, cancelation, or termination is fundamental to progress, acceptance of differences, and equality of diversity. These freedoms of speech, freedom to exercise well-established liberties, freedom from restrictions of choices by someone else’s determination, and monitoring unfiltered influences need to be protected for future generations.

Be careful not to judge someone else’s reality and expression by your own claiming to be just because from their perspective, the opposite may be just. Censor yourself first. What you seek to terminate today may be what protects you tomorrow. So, how about we leave the terminating to the science fiction movies.

 

Thurston K Atlas
Creating a Buzz

 

 

 

Lack of knowledge



The price of not knowing.

I wholeheartedly believe that the greatest gift someone can give you is knowledge. The more quality and comprehensive the knowledge, the more valuable to be utilized, pursued, or possessed. Knowledge is the game-changer that launches better opportunities in life and the expectation that some specific comprehensions and reasonings are valued to accomplish more in life using that knowledge.

First, let us examine the primary stated definition and purpose for education to better frame what we have been conditionally exposed to with the currently accepted educational system and criteria of academic standards. What is the substance, and what determines the ideology or method of educational delivery but not knowledge? How do we determine what is really taught along with how and why?

According to Wikipedia definition, education facilitates learning or acquiring knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits. Horace Mann, the former Massachusetts Secretary of Education, is primarily regarded as the father of education in the United States. He initiated a system of professional teachers to teach an organized curriculum of basic content.

A basic level of literacy and inculcation of common public ideas and beliefs deemed standard was the goal. In other words, to develop the mind with a specific intent to meet the standards set forth and standardization of conformity. Education originally was for boys, along with bible study to tame their spirits.

Etymology is the study of words as they have changed over time with a primary focus on their roots or origin as they were derived from words that conveyed their true initial meaning. For example, the etymology of education is “Educare,” which can be translated to bring up or raise as well as in animals it refers to training them.

The etymology of inculcation can further be broken down but essentially means to “force upon, insist, stamp in, impress, tread down, trample on, tread on, or heel.” Inculcation is achieved by using persistent and repeated information to implant, instill, or even admonish or punish if needed. This enforces any ideas, theories, or behavior for indoctrination for acceptance of it.

To further this intent, homework was initially given as a punishment to break resistance to enhance adherence and not enhance learning. Next, to assist in assessing or “grading” to measure your predictability to assimilate to norms and meet expected standards.

Consider the source words and stated intent compared to the stated definition of brainwash which is defined as to make someone adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure. It is the human mind being altered or controlled by specific psychological techniques. Let us not forget that corporal punishment in the form of paddling or swats was encouraged for compliance as well.

The use of developmental psychology at the earliest ages increases the efficiency and acceptance of this intent and influence. It would be fair to say that this initiation takes place at the earliest age for maximum impact and efficiency, for example, preschool and kindergarten. This method of educational conditioning is passed down from generation to generation, influencing the surrendered blank slate (the child) for inscription according to the prevailing thoughts and conditions at the time chosen to be tolerated and conformed to.

It becomes traditionally accepted control and training to bend someone’s independence to a desired group’s agenda, determination, and many times personal opinions which are being imposed. Hence, a good percentage of a youth’s time is spent not under the direct line of supervision or teachings of their parents but being entrusted to a societal design that appoints a surrogate who is directly or indirectly forming a child’s reality and capabilities under the trust that you invested in the surrogate, the teacher.

This trust is then by virtue transferred to the child and reinforced by siblings, peers, status, and society. To further that educational goal, social norms as cultural learnings are taught through structural socialization and allegiances. An ideology of a perceived consensus that is not self-determined but assigned primarily through opportunities presented or opportunities denied.

The reasoning and judgment associated with this thought pattern create a root default behavior creating the assigned programed perspective of achievement or limitations. Well, maybe your limitations are greatly influenced outside yourself and predetermined by these outer influences by design. Accordingly, the thought must be put on the table for consideration and probability.

You become what you hear repeatedly and sometimes the loudest from the earliest ages while you are highly impressionable before thoughts really form. That is why it is better to place it there instead of removing thoughts initially embedded. Instead of replacing it with theirs, just putting theirs there first is the objective.

Education began as a social experiment and, on some not so coincidental levels, the belief that education is meant to be a regimen. The age of initiation gets younger as time passes and starts from daycare, preschool, and kindergarten. Nevertheless, the focused processes implant the expectations of an established social standard by specific conformity.

Excelling at achieving distinguished personal absorption of that social standard is the calibration within the educational and social structure on which achievement and personal accumulation are based. Standardized testing was not designed to include but to discourage and exclude in theory and practice. Training or conditioning people for continuity of compliance enforcing the core acceptance in their mind.

That creates conditioning tradition seemingly forever adhered to and defended instead of serious re-examination, adaptation, or overhaul periodically. Standardizing establishes the standard that restricts you from consideration or participation for the less knowledgeable and most disadvantaged. This assures the efficiency of the social structure and the manual or menial task labor force supply and demand.

The swindle of opportunities missed is unknown, but if standardized testing is the tide that raises all boats, then certainly the criteria and historical accuracy of educational teachings should yield the benefits that reflect this. But, unfortunately, the academic teachings often contradict historical accuracy at worst and are suspect at best.

The focus on these inaccuracies is a distraction from the much-needed practical exposure to the knowledge needed for post-schooling preparedness. Acquisition of this knowledge should not be secondary. Instead, the criteria should reflect preparedness for decisions regarding things that are generally learned later in life after making some of the mistakes of not knowing.

Teach the tools that sustain you in life, such as investments, financial literacy, entrepreneurship, etc., to reflect their importance in life more closely. For example, suppose you have 12 years of seven or eight hours a day, eight months a year. In that case, the time available and resources devoted should reflect a more knowledgeable labor force according to the claims of what the educational system represents itself to be.

So, you see, knowledge apparently is not the priority but conformity to even undesirable standards and enough “educational” training to create a functional labor force but not a knowledgeable labor force. Hence, the poverty of opportunity is assured with your consent to lack of knowledge but “educational” breeding. Schooling plants the seeds to become a producer or a consumer, a laborer or a manager always cognizant that it takes more laborers than managers.

The resolution to diminishing returns lies in the overall structure, content, and criteria analyzed and modernized. An educational pause and shift have occurred where the unheard of has happened. Now would be an opportune time to weigh the balances of sticking with the current education system after evaluating the observations of its effectiveness and results.

The harsh reality is there for all to see by how the lowest-paid worker just so happens to be the most essential, especially at this heightened time of danger. Powerless against decisions made that affect you and put you in jeopardy of being penalized for any resistance. Underemployment and economic exploitation is the whip that drives this mule, as evidenced by some politicians deciding to remove unemployment payments to force you back into the system. They remain on the public draw while determining that you must return to being exploited for their special interest enrichment.

The current situation exposes many societal acceptances that cannot be hidden behind the commonly accepted purposes and intent given, extending to collegiate education and college athletics. Thus, those needed for labor are conditioned to offer no resistance, are often knowledge deficient, and without influence, power, or support.

Often rewarded by some conditional incentive or dependency-filled void is what the educational system is structured to produce to promote societal perspectives that invite exploitation and automatic compliance.

Knowledge and education are not interchangeable and are with entirely different meanings and implications. Knowledge expands your known possibilities and wisdom, while education measures your level of absorption and compliance. The freedom of choice and randomness of fate is many times an illusion when the options and opportunities that have already been chosen for you to select from are made available. The choices are limited and controlled while usually being survival-driven.

So now we can rethink our educational system based on real purpose aware of the deceptions or step right up, next in line. Expecting a different outcome may be unrealistic unless we maximize our knowledge to increase our ability to recognize, create, or benefit from the opportunity.

Opportunity depends on awareness, awareness is based on knowledge, and accumulated knowledge is wisdom. Basically, you pay for what you don’t know and find yourself at the mercy of predators, and that is the price of not knowing. Many things may attempt to stop you, but do not let the lack of knowledge of not learning to be one of them.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz