We can bring the whole discussion to this little bit that you just stated. I agree with your statement completely. I simply assert that being told that your education is all about making you a critical thinker is indoctrination. Why?

Three points out of which many other can be drawn:

1) accentuating the importance of critically viewing information, puts gathering of information in an assumed state, meaning that you begin to see all information as equally worth investigation, since after all, you now have the magic bullet called critical thinking. This is akin to the concept of "objective journalism", which puts the journalist in a catatonic state of zero-opinion and effectively makes him useless for any purpose of investigation, while it gives a true investigative journalist a hue of "non-objectivity", in that he does not give the same weight to biased information, but goes for the crux of the issue instead.

2) this is especially bad for us "hard" science folk, because we have an in-built suspicion towards scientific nature of softer sciences, including but not limited to politics - therefore we assume a lot more in this area. We readily take the jargon in the mainstream media and rarely dig under the hood, so to speak. We are very susceptible to discussing practical application of this or that theoretical system, which bogs us down in endless discussion and further reinforces our suspicion that there is anything to be learned here. This is why our lack of education in history and political action strategy/tactics is a crucial part of indoctrination - we lack the tools of information gathering and our critical thinking is useless.

3) people in softer sciences are taught critical thinking and given access to information, but they are not given education in history and political action strategy/tactics. They are more frustrated, since they see the facts, but lack the tools to do anything about the situation. On top of that, they have to deal with completely clueless hard science folk who doubt their worth.

Therefore, insistence on critical thinking is indoctrination by omission. It is like demanding thorough investigation of a problem and course of action, but never giving you the tools of information gathering, or a set of effective actions to recommend based on your investigation. This approach buries you in bullshit: dismal sampling and no expectation function of particular action can do no better. They know it, so that's what you get. If you as much as lift your head and start pointed information gathering and political action, you will meet a wall of resistance to your informed critical thinking, up to and including assassination.

Obviously, we have reached some kind of agreement. I indeed do believe that political information gathering and action/strategy should be taught not only in primary, but every educational level and that it should be both government financed and mandatory. I also think that history should be the focus of our educational system, so that each of us is historian first, and only then an engineer, teacher or garbage collector.

This means that I view the choice of NOT organising education in this manner as the instrumental piece of the indoctrination machinery. The fact that you can, and indeed have a strong incentive to, choose NOT to study history, political information gathering and strategic/tactical action, is a choice. This choice was not always there, since universities 100 years back and more were very much forcused on society and it's functions, than any prectical subject (I can actually back this up with massive amount of litterature, but you can google the stuff easily) - it only became an active policy after the popular masses moved from lower to middle class and started getting "educated".

This new practical education (like your engineering) had nothing to do with the philosophical nature of the education of elites that existed before and now in parallel, very much because people who started attending universities: a) weren't supposed to maddle with politics and were just supposed to keep the machine running and b) had a more realistic view of the role of the state, government and the private actor and were not going to be fooled by the high philosophical theories taught in old universities. YES - even the old system of education was indoctrination for the elite - someone had to explain to the designated rulers that slavery was ok, killing millions and taking their land just and proper etc. This has always been OK for the elites, because they are sufficiently detached from the general population to already be half way in Alice in Wonderland regarding their understanding of the functioning system.

We are in a situation today that we have had this parallel educational system for over 100 years and unintended consequences are appearing all over the place. Many intellectuals are able to connect with the people on the ground, because education is much more readily available to lower classes. We are beginning to see active attempts of the elite to limit access to education, which shakes us in our role of the middle class buffer, because our children might not be able to afford education and healthcare, which again links us to the interests of the much more sober and realistic lower class activists. We are increasingly facing our educational deficit in political action and some of us are waking up to the fact that we are lightyears behind and not incidentally. The elite started an all-out war on popular organisation in all it's forms since 1960-70es and hasn't let up since. The media I don't have to discuss at all I hope. Elite have introduced money in politics and for the past 20 years opened flood gates to the legislative branch. Recently they entered judicial brach by making election of judges a matter of campaign contributions. The recent Citizens United case in supreme court opened the flood gates to this little off-the-radar operation of buying judges. The military is strongly being outsourced at the moment and the amount of money going from public to private hands is staggering.

Why am I telling you this? Roman democracy started with introduction of money in their political system. Money was then propagated to judicial system. Once money reached the leadership of the standing Roman army, Rome got it's first Emperor. Today we are not dealing with trebuches, bows, arrows and swords - today we have nukes. This is about who controles the global society and ultimately about the survival of our species. The sooner you abandon the idea that the warning signs are just conspiracy kooks mouthing off, the sooner you can recongnise the gravity of our predicament.

This is why I don't bother to vote, the candidates are all puppets for their parties. No one outside the two main parties will ever really have a shot. I would have voted for Ron Paul, but (imo) the media said he was not allowed. Not to say Mr Paul could really do much anyway, he talks a good game overall though, the man makes sense at least.

Prolly already been mentioned several times but no one wants to be the first one on the white house lawn with a gun lol. I'm also afraid all the hillbillies w/ shotguns are dead, their time is past.

 From history, politicians used to be "public servants" Yes they worked for the people for little to nothing. Seems like I recall reading Washington himself had to pay for a lot of things out of his own pocket. They are not pubilc servants anymore. Being a politician is a job, a good paying job with many benefits, some under the table. Corporations really are pulling the purse strings imo. They are getting bold with it as well, this new change that allows them to directly have a hand in elections is a slap in the face of the american people, "and you can't do anything about it, nya nyah!"

Why do we have an electoral college, oh rly.

Yes... to be converted into a Christian-Fascist state, right? The parallels with the arguments that you state (opinions which you have presented as fact) and the similarities to Germany of the early 1930s are present... though not in sufficient severity to convince.

The current recession was caused by reckless consumption on money many consumers did not have (but was in fact lent to them, by incredibly greedy banks). The next one (in America and much of the developed world) will be caused by printing currency as if doing so will promote a healthy economy, when it rarely does so in reality.

So you assert without an abundance of fact.

.... this is a good bit more realistic then the assumption (soothsayer's prediction, rather) that an economy will fail on the basis of current trends and the emotionally-charged reaction from two very distinct factions of politics in the USA/world.

This is a time when Brian37's pragmatism would be most useful in a discussion.

Like Norway and the rest of the EU has quite a bit of, atm, but often shows a great deal of hesitation?

A bloody rise of two or three militant factions demonstrating a willingness monopolize government/rulership and destroy each other. (The bolded part is a little too close to reality in the US for comfort)

We would have the equivalent of a Red Oktober Revolution where White Bolsheviks and Red Bolsheviks struggled violently, nihilistically and ruthlessly to assert a new form of Government... one that eschews the conventions of the previous form of Government.

A failed system of currency wouldn't see a nasty, blood-soaked devolution of your country's culture? I think you need to spend more time in books of historical fact, rather than books of opinion.

It isn't important? There's (magically?) a lower % of sociopaths in your country?

Maybe you should take a look at the history of G8 summits, in particular the protests of last Summer.

Oh yes, it certainly would happen... you are correct about that. What you aren't correct about, is the ability of Americans to practice enlightened self-preservation in times of great economic or political strife.

Correct, two distinct factions have a desire to destroy each other, violently and non-violently, so that the other side may assert itself more

HARDLY

Yes well I would hate to see tea baggers or some such in this "revolution", who would be put in power?

The reality is, if such a thing did occur, lets play pick the country that will move in to take us over while we are in complete disarray. I suspect china, in submarines and longboats, this country would fall so fast. Makes me think of the movie red dawn.

It's just not a good idea really.

oh, i forgot to add perhaps the most important condition:

there would also have to be a great deal of deprivation and dissatisfaction among the rank-and-file military.  this was quite possibly the deciding factor in the russian revolution: the rank-and-file as well as the NCOs were all decidedly bolshevik.  such a phenomenon would theoretically still be possible: while the gap in lifestyle between officers and rank-and-file is not quite as pronounced in the US army as it was in the russian army of 1917, it is still significant, and i predict that in times of hardship it would become even more obvious, but that is a moot point.  the possibility of the objective conditions is just not there.