Why is respect important?

When someone demonstrates the humble respect that is typical of small children, that means that they have the ability to efficiently learn and to quickly correct any perceptual mistakes. They not only have the eyes to see, but an open mind for perceiving correctly. They are not blinded by social conditioning (at least not yet).

If they are confused about something, they can admit it and perhaps resolve their confusion through simple observation and experimentation. They are open to learning. Being open to learning can correspond to accurate assessments of opportunities and risks, and thus the avoiding of risks and seizing of opportunities.

Many older children and adults have been socially-conditioned to focus on particular issues as important. They have also been trained to memorize certain ideas and then to organize their experience around supporting those ideas. They filter their perceptions by seeking out certain data and to avoid or even reject certain data (or certain methods).

In other words, they have been programmed to focus on certain aspects of reality and to focus on those details in certain specific ways. Anything that conflicts with the ideas that they have been trained to memorize is likely to be ignored at first, then specifically dismissed, then passionately criticized, ridiculed, and resisted. They have been programmed with certain presumptions which inherently sets them up to avoid any experiences or observations which contrast with those presumptions.



How are small children programmed to memorize certain presumptions? One popular method is gathering a group of children together then presenting some idea to them and socially rewarding them for memorizing the presented idea and then immediately repeating back that unexamined idea. Curiosity and dissent (at least beyond a certain amount) will be targeted as disruptive and may result in expulsion from the group or correction by medication (or both).

The amount of detail that children are programmed to memorize can be overwhelming to them, which may be the specific intent of the training systems. The normal tendency toward logic and critical thinking can be interrupted through intense rituals of social pressure.

For instance, children may be rewarded for memorizing the idea that a particular substance is deadly. Do the children conduct tests to determine how deadly it is (or if it is at all)? Or, do they simply repeat back what they have been programmed to repeat (in exchange for social validation)? Do they review actual research of that substance and then criticize the methods of that research (or review the criticisms of other authors)?

When a system of indoctrination is in operation, scientific inquiry by the target population may be very disruptive to the indoctrination programming. Instead, students can attend classes about science in which specific ideas about science are programmed and then rewarded. Students may then think of themselves as experts in science because they have first memorized a specific set of ideas (which they have never examined in detail) and then second they repeated those ideas in exchange for social rewards of validation and approval and college scholarships and so on.

So, is cholesterol a dangerous and fatal demon that is manufactured by billions of livers in order to possess, attack, and hopefully kill the rest of the organism? Or, is cholesterol a nutrient that is so essential that healthy organisms manufacture significant amounts of it (whether or not they eat anything that contains cholesterol)?

As for living things that do not have livers (such as plants), are those things "healthier" to eat because they do not already contain cholesterol (such that their nutrients will be used to manufacture it)? As for living things that do have livers, are those things "less healthy" to eat because they already have manufactured cholesterol in their livers (through exactly the same process that is used is our own livers)?

If there is no controversy that many varieties of animals all produce cholesterol in their livers (such as herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores), then what is the origin of the idea that eating anything with cholesterol in it might be somehow dangerous? Should we also avoid eating any plant matter that our stupid livers could accidentally or maliciously make in to cholesterol?

If we learn that cholesterol is composed of lots of carbon and hydrogen, plus some oxygen, should we make a point to avoid all of those demonic poisons? Do we think of avoiding the components of cholesterol as hysterical and paranoid, but the avoiding of cholesterol as anything other than hysterical and paranoid?

I personally think that mainstream science curriculums contain some hilarious content. Is it possible that a group of adults would conspire to intentionally deceive naive children for purposes beneficial to the adults?

On a heroic search for answers, I recently interviewed the real Santa Claus. During the interview, I said to myself, "all conspiracy theories are insulting and should be responded to with shock and outrage. If the US President says that there were a series of disasters all in one day involving hijacked planes and damage to the pentagon and 3 world trade center buildings, we must recognize that he is attempting to insult our intelligence. After all, I read on the internet that those tragic disasters were entirely coincidental. Therefore, the US President's theory of a conspiracy must be completely rejected along with all similar accusations that Santa Claus would ever intentionally dress up in a disgusting attempt to trick naive children in to thinking that Santa was in fact one of the child's family members." Next: Why is respecting the empire so important?

CLICK HERE TO SEND A MESSAGE.