The Fall Of America Has Come
by Tim Griffith

For over 100 years the American people have been subjected to an uninterrupted program of “pseudo-education.” This program has resulted in a public that believes itself able to comprehend most things presented to it by the various media. The public is sadly mistaken in this presumption. Simply being able to read does not indicate ability to comprehend. The pseudo-education program has been successful beyond the wildest expectations of those who applied it.

Through the application of pseudo-education the common man has learned to read but not how to use his mind in the logical progression that leads to problem solving, and therefore, is barely functional. The Chinese gave name to the problem-solving manner of thought; they call it “correct thinking.” The root of correct thinking is willingness to discern a real problem as separate from a glaring symptom of a problem.

The use of incorrect thinking is the practice of addressing a symptom while thinking the actual problem is being solved—a lot like treating a cough while ignoring the fact that the cause of the cough is pneumonia. Failure to recognize the problem insures failure at curing the symptom. Correct thinking would cure both. Correct thinking is only taught at the highest levels of the education system and only to a few within those levels. Some are able to apply correct thinking because of genetic predisposition. This is scientifically proven. Meanwhile the “common man” is carefully conditioned away from seeing the difference between symptoms and real problems as a result of the pseudo-education system.

Today the bulk of the American people are unable to apply any form of logical thinking with regard to how problems should be identified and solved. The glaring proof of this is the growing number of elected officials who attain office through the tool of promising to “make things better” for the “common man”. These elected officials, without exception, then embark on a program of legislative acts, the design and intent of which is the exact opposite of their stated intention. Strong evidence of this is that long-standing problems are not addressed by the newly elected official, for example, the election of a President with no substantial history of experience and whose campaign platform was the promise of ideas that have been proven throughout history to be bad for whatever people attempted them. There can be no disputing that many people voted for this man based on a perceived ethnic tie, historically the poorest basis for any choice. Voting for anything because of a perceived ethnic relationship is usually disastrous for any people or society that has ever resorted to it as a tool for desirable change.

Teaching people to read but not to comprehend has made them easy prey for the self-serving politician, as the people who are most victimized by these politicians and their legislations continue to re-elect the very officials that are creating or maintaining the social difficulties they purport to be fighting against. These elected officials are far too well-educated to claim that they don’t understand the error of the reasoning they are applying. From this, one can only infer that these legislators are knowingly and with malice aforethought making life more difficult, instead of less so, for Americans. That the people continue to suffer this without any attempt to curtail the activities of these legislators, (through the tool of the ballot box,) can only mean that the bulk of America does not understand most of what is presented to it by various media sources.

What about those who seem able to understand and comprehend most information offered them and to apply “correct thinking“ to their own problems? There can be no doubt or argument that some people are better able [than the common man] to comprehend whatever information comes their way. These individuals are less susceptible to the type of education that is identified above. That they represent the minority of any society is a matter of scientific certainty. These individuals try to apply correct thinking and to convince others to use it but their efforts often are fruitless. Most of these correct thinkers fail to realize that the bulk of their fellow humans are simply not capable of applying correct thinking. Those that do figure it out normally end up deciding that going along with the system (that created this entire situation) is more personally profitable than doing otherwise. The love of money is the root of all evil, and the desire for easy living can be relied upon to win over most dissension. This concept is often spoken in street language as “you’ve got to go along to get along.” This system tends to award those who follow the concept and punish those who either cannot or will not follow this clearly flawed theology.

That there are no “good guys” in the government of the United States of America is easily proven. Whenever one party becomes powerful enough to do as it sees fit they work carefully to keep things the way they are or to make them worse rather than attempting to solve problems while the opportunity is afforded. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in American political history. Any hope for a selfless execution of the duties of office went out the window when a comfortable lifestyle came as a result the job. Whenever any elected official has the opportunity to make effective change for the good of the country he invariably does otherwise, or at best, does nothing. Elected officials eventually either give up their attempts at making effective change by leaving office or they come to embrace the entrenched system.

Historically, the only remedy for situations like this has been armed insurrection, in short, through the tool of organized and armed opposition to the established institutional system, (government in all its forms.) In America the movement to eliminate this people’s tool has been hard at work for many decades. The pseudo-education system has produced enough non-thinking Americans to be able to carry nearly any election. With this situation in place the disarming of the public is a simple matter of enacting legislation that makes it legal to do so. This sad fact has paved the way for disarming the American citizenry, historically the most important step for bringing any nations’ public to subjugation.

It is always in the name of “public safety” that government seeks to achieve the legal power to eliminate the tools that keep physical control of the people from being a reality. Those tools are the armaments (all the effective weapons of war) held by the citizenry. No tyrannical government has ever come to power without first disarming the public. How is it that a whole public would willingly give up its only means to defend itself from an oppressive government? Pseudo-education has conditioned the public to believe whatever it is told by any media while disbelieving information that comes from any other source. Therefore, when officials proclaim such a thing “could not happen here,” the public is inclined to believe them rather than to carefully consider other historically unavoidable effects of the law they are being asked to accept.

This is the situation that correct-thinking Americans face today and for the rest of their foreseeable lives. Simply possessing the necessary arms is not enough to make effective use of the force such weaponry represents. Without organizing into effective combat elements there is no hope whatsoever of affecting any change by use of arms. The armed citizen of America has already been beaten by the tool of an enemy never recognized: the pseudo-education system. The armed citizens of America have not developed into any form of organization simply because they do not think it necessary. Those small groups that have had the foresight to organize are branded as “radicals” and “cults:” titles the public readily accepts as the truth of the matter.

The people of America have recently had a new name applied to them. They are collectively referred to as “sheeple” by those who employ correct thinking. Being likened to sheep is as accurate as it is demeaning. Sheep are completely dependent upon the benevolent rule of the shepherd even though his intention is to eventually eat the sheep. In the absence of a shepherd to “protect” them, a flock of sheep could run-off or kill nearly any predator that threatened them if they would just act together in their common interest. Instead they prefer to run in panic-stricken hysteria until a victim is singled out. Once the victim is selected the rest of the flock is content to watch the ensuing carnage. Their perception of personal safety is all it takes for them to calm down and return to normal life.

The mass-application of pseudo-education to an entire population is what has made all of the above so obvious that further explanation is not needed for those who have learned how to apply correct thinking and are able to understand the lessons of history.

The “sheeple” of America are doomed to follow their chosen shepherds right to the slaughterhouse because they have been conditioned from birth to believe it is in their best interest to follow the shepherd wherever he leads. Those who cannot be accurately labeled as “sheeple” can look forward to a similar fate simply because there are not enough correct thinking Americans to be able to force a different end.

Any hope of this prediction being inaccurate is dwindling rapidly. The tool of pseudo-education has all but sealed the fate of America. The vast majority of Americas have been conditioned to believe there is no need to act collectively, and so through inaction we all will lose everything.

God is the only hope because our brethren either cannot or will not do what must be done.

6 COMMENTS

  1. I find it ironic that you criticize our country for its lack of “correct” thinkers, and then end with the notion that “God is the only hope.” The definition of faith is believing something with no proof. This is the antithesis of logical, critical reasoning. Perhaps if we did not tell our children to believe in things with no proof of existence, they would grow into more critical thinkers. Perhaps religion is the root of “pseudo-education.”

  2. @timtheteacher

    Sigh, I’m glad someone called my attention to this. I’m not sure how I misled you and I’m sorry if I wrote so poorly that you got lost in it. I did not criticize our country for its lack of correct thinkers. I’m not sure how you came to think so.The entire piece was an indictment and a lamentation of how thoroughly this great nation has been undermined by self-serving politicians and their clever and well thought out use of the concept of public education. My closing remark of God being the only hope was part of a further lamentation about the unwillingness of my fellow man to get his mind right for what it will take to halt the effects of the psuedo education system, his unwillingness being yet another symptom of that system. He would much rather argue about religion than make preparations for the problems that are embodied by trying to set things right. Religion is simply another victim of the psuedo education system as your challenge demonstrated. Thanks for your assistance in helping to clarify the depth of the success of the psuedo education system.

  3. I’ll keep my reply respectful, on point and without any sarcastic condescension.

    I’ll try to clarify. I understood your piece. I happen to disagree with the thesis. I (as a public school teacher) see no evidence that politicians and teachers are applying applying a program of pseudo-education. In contrast, I witness my colleagues in eveyr discipline challenging kids every day to think critically and problem solve at the deepest level of Bloom’s taxonomy.

    Where I witness a lack of critical thinking is in religious arguments that unfortunately (in my view) permeate political arguments in extraordinarily harmful ways. In my view, policies on our war in Iraq, abortion, and gay marriage, for instance, are all influenced by religion rather than by what is harmful or beneficial to people.

    As far as making preparations for our society’s problems, I make a difference in a classroom everyday on the front lines of education in an effort to better our society. As a liberal, I also happen to read conservative blogs and listen to views different from my own, and respond in an effort to promote debate. Arguing about religion, in my view, is an essential component of this debate.

  4. @timtheteacher
    Hmmm. It is clear you misunderstood the essay and this most recent response is even more proof of “psuedo education”, though proof is not needed. I didn’t make it up, I just gave it a name. You are an obvious product of it and, in fact, are helping to continue its evil design, whether you think so or not. That you “disagree” or not has no bearing on these facts. You have attempted to use the phrase, “in my view”, as a bludgeon with which to force argument where there isn’t anything to argue. Your view is contrary to reality and it seems that you’re trying to make an argument to help convince yourself that there is merit in the nonsense you’ve embraced. You could, as well, try to argue how a shadow is made. You may choose to disagree with the fact that a shadow is created by something blocking the source of a prevailing light, but an argument won’t change how a shadow is made. There is no debate going on. We know how shadows are made.
    The shadow is very much like religion. It cannot be touched or tested in any way but it is still there and it effects everything on earth. The shadow, like religion, is very real. The absence of the shadow would make a huge difference in the world just as would the absence of religion. Religion is the cornerstone of civilization and the single concept that prompted a thriving human population. Religion is the single and first step for man to determine what is right or wrong, fair or unfair, healthy or unhealthy, wise or unwise. It is the basis for all these things. Without it there would be no politics because we would still be savages. Similarly, there would be no “liberals” if the environment weren’t first made safe and secure enough for such foolishness by religious ideologies and conservative activities. I trust you are happy to be living in a country that is so comfortable that its inhabitants can indulge in unproductive contemplation about the reality of things that are inarguable facts. Life in America was made this way [safe and secure] by adherence to basic conservative principles that are based in religious ideologies. Nothing else can take any credit for the progress of humans from the dawn of time to the present. All of this is fact and inarguable. Your views can’t change facts. Quietly rethinking your views will, without debate, salvage dignity and calm your spirit. Go in peace.

  5. I will reply while addressing any Reader out there who might be following…

    1) My friend argues that “[l]ife in America was made… safe and secure by adherence to basic conservative principles that are based in religious ideologies. There is compelling evidence that this is not true. As Brooke Allen points out in the excllent book Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, “The eighteenth century was not an age of faith but an age of science and skepticism, and the American Founding Fathers were in its vanguard.” This is why, for instance, our founding fathers omitted any mention of God in our Constitution (I urge you to search for it). In fact, the First Amendment is a direct repudiation of the first Two Commandments. Consider: the first 2 Commandments are “You shall have no other gods before me” and “You shall not make for yourself a carved image- any likeness of anything…” In direct contrast, the First Amendment expressly protects religious freedom and speech (expressive freedom). Finally, consider the words of Thomas Jefferson, who famously referred to the God of the Old Testament as a “being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.” Does this sound religious to you, Reader?

    2) My friend argues that public school teachers are unwittingly helping to continue the evil design of pseudo-education in our country. I ask the Reader who might have children who have attended public schools, does this statement match your experience? Or, is it your experience that public school teachers effect a positive change in your childrens’ lives and intellects? How would my friend have us as a society teach children algebra, chemistry, and world history, for instance, as well as problem solving and critical thinking? What is his plan?

    3) I ask the Reader to note the tone of the debate between my friend and me. He makes statements like “all of this is fact and inarguable,” or “proof is not needed” or “correct thinking.” I, from a more secular point of view, use phrases like “I find it” or “in my view” not to hedge, but to recognize the validity of opposing viewpoints. Which way of thinking is more intransigent, and therefore dangerous?

    Despite my friend’s request (order?) that I go in peace (go away?), I will not because the spirit of Rob’s program is that all viewpoints are welcome. I (like the Founding Fathers) will remain a skeptical and questioning observer.

  6. I’m still wondering, what “debate”?
    The first guy explained how things are and the other guy wants to argue about something, but I don’t know what. I think home-schooling is looking pretty good right now and terbltim’s last remark looks like good advice to me, Teach.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here