The universal remedy of so many is education. When asking: "What's education?" many reply: "Education stands for wealth and socialization, while transporting knowledge." Further asking uncovers: "Education is institutionalized homogenization of different levels." Especially from the left you hear: "Education for all!". A nice idea, right? But what does it really mean?
In many Western countries the political agenda to welcome people from abroad relies on education as remedy through which a common sense, a homogenized level of understanding is to be created, wherefore people are in education programs, the kids in schools, the grown-ups in vocational training, colleges or universities. Institutionally, students obtain an upgrade of what to think, what to believe in, to differentiate right from wrong, but mostly not critical thinking...
In contrast to religion and tradition, education is the maxim of many confident to handle any integration challenge while rejecting the maxim on the right of strong borders and closing the borders against "foreign" influences.
Ideology aside, when looking on education analytically - not ideologically and culture-centered - then via education not facts are transported but content, a propagated collection, a canon, meaning values and convictions, many considering themselves educated regard as facts.
Those willing and able to put ideology aside might realize: On the surface via education facts - often considered as truth - are transported, but subliminally values and convictions, since self-evidently the "best content" is without the desired impact, when not accepted by recipients with values and convictions deviant from the presented content.
Why is that left out even by the political left considering themselves educated in their ideologically ingrained analysis and approach? Further widely unreported: Many with different cultural backgrounds perceive Western education as left side and expansive economic endeavors of Western corporations as right side of a double-edged sword, often considered as cultural imperialism, self-evidently when taking groups into account such as Northern Nigerian internationally classified terrorist organisation "Boku Haram" (translated: "Western education is evil").
Analytically speaking, criticism of ideology is widely under-highlighted by the media perhaps for a "good" reason, as criticism of ideology scrutinizes 360°, therefore also the practiced propagation of democracy of a certain kind, meaning a worldwide forcefully and militarily installed (Western) ideology in liaisons with (Western) corporations exploiting natural and human resources of a region, cultural imperialists are "interested in", i.e. falling in, a model Asian regimes with expansive influence on other continents copied.
Many propagating democracy don't have democracy in mind, as many tribes worldwide can go on in age-old archaic traditions they are used to, live in stark contrast with human rights, without any public attention, as long these tribes inhabit regions, economically worthless, unattractive for corporations to fall in.
Exporting the American Way of Life worldwide has a long tradition, reminding dreadfully of US history: After cultural imperialists systematically took land and killed large parts of Native Americans, the survivors of this "ethnic cleansing" were expelled from their ancestral land deported to and "herded up" in reservations, without any economic interest for the government and companies, areas sans natural resources to exploit, only to be driven away again, once profitable natural resources were discovered in their reservations, which suddenly gained economic value for the government and businesses.
Moreover Native American children systemically were forced into Western education, meaning forcefully snatched from their parents, transported to boarding schools, wherein they were bottled with Western values and convictions in effort to make them "Good Americans", while prohibited from speaking their native language, wearing their traditional attire and using their genuine symbols.
This cultural imperialist US-doctrine against Native Americans - whereupon an area in the Black Hills sacred to Native Americans were chosen by US government for engraving in stone the heads of US-presidents (Mount Rushmore N.M., finished in 1941) - was still practiced in the 1960s, many years after the horrors of the Second World War with e.g. German/Japanese institutionalized terror and nationalism, as if those having lost WW2 were barred from developing nationalism ever again, whereas the victors flourished in their nationalism without regulatory.
All this reminds of the age-old conflict between good and evil, a battle based on binary friend-foe-scheme, Manichean logic, until today fought between ideologies, science and religion, a war, wherein conveniently each side considers itself good and the others as enemies, as false, as evil.
Many, heavily relying on education as cure-all seemingly forget: No matter how good they consider themselves, it's not truth or facts they transport with education, but analytically speaking, only content considered as truth or facts.
All sides rely on education to pass on content they consider right to their youth, filling the young with content beneficial for the continuance of the ideology, meaning values and convictions the given side - even on the left - considers right, as the truth, and therefore the others' position as lie, propaganda, false or even evil. Here, Philosophy of Science en passant, esp. "Paradigm Shift" in Harvard professor Thomas S. Kuhn's book: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962), wherein "incommensurability" describes rivaling paradigms, way too different to have common ground.
Referring to German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's book: "Beyond Good and Evil", it's beyond good and evil, it's about you, your self-reflection and emancipation from political power play, ideology, manipulative agendas of groups and parties - even in science and media - urging you not to reflect but to follow them in blind faith. Therein "impeccable" authorities claim to propagate "the truth" and to be always closer to "the truth" than you are, an undemocratic attitude awfully reminding of the very same religion those condemn while themselves demanding your followship and subordination to their propagated content, i.e. to believe them, adopt their convictions, share their values, and submit to their belief system only.
Analytically speaking, it's beyond good and evil, beyond truth or facts, it's all about you, what you believe in, what you sponsor with your attention and devotion. It's up to you, how you lead your life, whom you follow: Yourself or somebody else. You decide. One exit: Take the qualities working best for you from ideology, religion and science.
Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann
Systemic Analyst and Philosopher
