Mind Control In and Out of School

We all consider ourselves to be independent free-thinkers.

We refuse to bow down to the authority of religious leaders or politicians.

Defiantly, we think for ourselves.

If anyone tries to tell us what to think or what to do, we rebel. We would rather make our own mistakes than to follow someone else’s advice and get it right.

I have occasionally noted that the free thinkers who inhabit the central precincts of the great cosmopolitan metropolis all think the same thing.

Sorry to have to say it, but when you think like everyone else, you are not thinking.

As for our putative rejection of authorities, the truth is we spend a considerable amount of our time bowing down to the authority of so-called experts, especially when they wrap themselves in the mantle of science.

We allow psychologists and psychiatrists to tell us how to conduct our relationships, how to manage our lives, and even how to bring up our children.

We are convinced that we have made a great leap forward by rejecting right and wrong. In their place we worship the concepts of sick and healthy.

You cannot be wrong; you cannot be bad; you cannot even commit evil actions. You are sick. You don’t need to change your ways. You need help.

If you are having problems in your marriage-- who isn’t?-- you might well be referred to a psychiatrist.

And yet, is the marriage sick? Does it need medication? Would surgery be a better option.

Why do we think that years of medical training gives anyone a special qualification to guide an unhappy couple toward martial comity?

Medical school does not give anyone any special knowledge about right and wrong, good and bad, how to behave and how not to behave.

Nor does the science of psychology offer any real training in what would count as ethical or unethical behavior.

No one should be surprised to learn that couples counseling has a dismal success rate, or that American marriage has been in dire straits ever since therapists declared it to be sick and turned it into a profit center.

Of course, therapists have opinions. Unfortunately, they believe that since they are men and women of science their opinions have scientific validity and ought to be respected as scientific fact.

Considering that a vastly larger proportion of therapists lean markedly left, the advice they dole out, when they deign to do so, tends to come to us from the playbooks of leftist cultural warriors.

Buy into the left’s cultural agenda and you are pronounced to be healthy. Reject it and you are called sick, even a hater.

One wonders how many true-blue liberals are afraid to espouse conservative principles because they do not want to be diagnosed as mentally ill?

I am not at all saying that therapists have set out to indoctrinate their patients in leftist ideology. Many of them are well-meaning souls living normal lives. Some of them are my friends.

Yet, you can transmit leftist thought without knowing that you are doing so. You could be what the medical profession calls a “carrier,” someone who transmits a disease without manifesting any of its symptoms.

It’s perfectly possible for a carrier to teach errors that will cause troubles for other people without suffering the same troubles.

And then there’s the matter of allowing others to tell us how to bring up our children.

Not just psychologists and psychiatrists, but especially teachers. As a nation we consign our children’s minds to teachers, to the point where we are often afraid to object when these teachers abuse their authority.

Teachers have great power over any child’s future. With great power comes great responsibility. But, with great power comes the opportunity for great abuse of power.

A teacher hands out grades. The grades count toward college admissions and job opportunities. Most pupils figure out at a young age that good grades are often handed out to pupils who think as the teacher thinks.

Since pedagogues no longer seem to believe in objective standards, they gain even greater power over their pupils’ minds.

Worse yet, a teacher can encourage or discourage a pupil, to the point where a brilliant child can be beaten down until he hates school and hates schoolwork.

Similarly, a mediocre child might receive praise that has so little to do with his aptitude that he becomes socially dysfunctional.

A while ago feminists decided that the school system was prejudiced against girls. If boys did better than girls in math and science, for example, that could only mean that there was an unconscious bias against girls.

So they set out to redistribute mental aptitude. They induced teachers to encourage girls and to discourage boys.

If you have an educational establishment that systematically beats down the morale of boys, the result will be a cohort of young men that feels lost in the workplace.

Among those who are charged with hiring new employees for companies, it is fast becoming received wisdom that young men are not worth hiring, but that young women work harder, take more initiatives, and complain less.

I heard from more than one source that the young men who are graduating from the best of America’s institutions of higher education are dusfunctional.

What happens to young men who have been systematically demoralized by their teachers? What becomes of them when they discover that they are ill suited for the world of work and manly achievement?

They become a very nasty and unruly bunch of hooligans.

You might think that we would be seeing outraged parents rising up in protest against what the way their children are being treated in school. We are not. Apparently, they are afraid of being called misogynists.

And then there’s the matter of the way sex education is taught in schools. If we are to believe Robin of Berkeley-- and I have no reason not to-- sex education has become a preferred way to undermine sexual identity and to promote what are called alternative lifestyles.

Children as young as five are encouraged to think that they can be whatever gender they want and that they should feel free to experiment with alternative sexual behaviors.

Sex education has gone well beyond the birds and the bees. Schools have taken it on themselves to expose small children to details about adult sexuality that have no relevance to their experience.

It is fair to say, as Robin of Berkeley does, that exposing young children to explicit sexual materials, materials where pride of place is offered to homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and the like… should count as child abuse.

A five year old does not need to hear about or to see sexually explicit materials. A nine year old does not need to learn how to use a condom. If, as Robin says, an adult male were to start explaining sexual matters to a five year old or an eight year old, he would be instantly identified as a pedophile.

Why are they doing this? I imagine that these educators are trying to promote a form mind control that they believe to be therapeutic.

If gays or transsexuals feel badly because they are different from everyone else, then some teachers believe that everyone else should be obligated to make them feel better.

And the rest of the human race should do so by acting as though they have gay or bi or trans tendencies. Or by exploring alternative sexual lifestyles.

Anyone who objects is likely to be denounced as a bigot.

Call this the tyranny of sameness… it’s ostensible reason is to reduce the amount of discrimination against people who have a different sexual orientation.

But, what is wrong with being different. Being different is not necessarily a stigma, and it does not go away by teaching a five year old that gender reassignment surgery is yet another lifestyle choice.

As you might have guessed, the reasoning behind this exercise in child abuse is specious, to the point of absurdity.

If we accept that some gays are gay by nature, and that it is bad for therapists or anyone else to try to convert them to heterosexuality, would it also not be true that most heterosexuals are heterosexual by nature and that it violates their integrity to try to persuade them to try out homosexual experiences.

Whatever the ostensible reason behind this new sex education, it produces sexual traumas, and thus makes relationships more difficult, to the point of undermining the institution of marriage.

You may or not think that Robin of Berkeley is being alarmist, but you should keep in mind that the current campus hookup culture mimics behavior that has been a staple of gay men.

They, more than any other group, is most likely to engage in random, anonymous sexual encounters. When you teach girls that, if they are attracted to men, they are just like gay men, and if you allow them to believe that they can best fulfill their sexual potential by acting as though they are gay men, you are doing them serious damage.

You would think that parents would be outraged about all of this, to the point where they would rise up in protest and put an end to it.

Unfortunately, this is only rarely the case.