Education at its maximum? Give me a break

Education at its maximum? Give me a break

They say they want to educate you at the maximum level. These lies cannot be bigger. Not only would educating people at its maximum mean lifelong education, but the form of education would be completely different.

Curriculum only beneficial to the super-rich

Literature, physics, chemistry, biology, geography, fairy-tale-like history. Do you really think this can threaten them? Not in any way!

I am not saying that some of the disciplines are not crucial for this world’s running, but the super-rich want to divert attention from their crimes by introducing the ones which are harmless.

They say they educate you at maximum and education is only their credit

This is not only an utter lie. As individuals mature, they gain knowledge by using logic (Performance IQ), by remembering information (Verbal IQ), and by continuously adding new insights. I am not saying that schools deserve no credit—but they are only a small part of the process.

Not just theory but real life knowledge

Thank you for the clarification. Here is a revised version focused on how students never witness these things in practice—how the real methods are hidden from them, never shown in classrooms, never demonstrated in action:

Not just theory but what they never show you

They say school prepares you for the real world. That if you learn the rules, master the content, pass the tests—you will understand how power works.

But what they give you is theory. What they never show you is practice.

You study international law, but you never sit in a room where sanctions are quietly bypassed through shell companies and legal gray zones. And you never see how real deals override every human rights clause in the book.

You take ethics classes, but you never see a real boardroom where a billion-dollar fine is calculated as a cost of doing business. Where silence is bought, evidence buried, and lawyers coach executives on how to lie without lying.

You learn about democracy, but you never see how an election is tilted by controlling voter data, shifting districts, or coordinating media timing. These processes are invisible to students. They are done behind closed doors, by professionals who will never teach.

Education: How does George Soros invest?

In finance, you are told how markets work. But you never see how insiders front-run trades, how hedge funds crash currencies through coordinated shorts, or how “long-term investing” is just the story told to retail investors like you.

You study journalism, but you never see how editorial lines are set in advance. How stories are killed. How public narratives are shaped weeks before they air. No professor brings you into those meetings.

You learn medicine, but you are never shown how clinical data is quietly altered before FDA submission. You do not witness how lobbyists delay public warnings about a harmful drug while short-selling its competitors.

In tech, you learn programming. But no one shows you how backdoors are inserted at the hardware level, how software terms are shaped through dark pattern design, or how procurement deals are secured not by code—but by family ties and favors.

All you see is theory. Bullet points. Case studies written after the fact. But the real thing—the mechanics, the live execution, the moral violations in real time—you are never shown that. You are not invited. You are not allowed.

And even if you rise to the top of your class, the door stays closed. Because real knowledge is not taught. It is withheld. It is practiced, not explained. Transmitted through trust, through silence, through inheritance.

They educate you just enough to believe. But never enough to threaten.

Some schools are paid

They say, “If you want real education, pay for it.” So you do. You—or your parents—pour thousands, even hundreds of thousands, into elite institutions. Fancy buildings. Latin mottos. Prestige by association.

And what do you get?

The same myths, the same filters. The same obedience training—just with a higher price tag.

Yes, the chairs are more comfortable. The cafeteria serves quinoa instead of canned beans. Professors publish more. But the core remains untouched: submission dressed as sophistication.

You are taught how to behave, not how to rebel, you are taught how to sound smart, not how to think freely. You write long essays about Plato or climate change. But never about the families that fund your university while exploiting the planet. You debate capitalism—but not the funders of your debate team. You study inequality—funded by billionaires who own sweatshops in Bangladesh.

They sell you “critical thinking.” But only within the fence. Never against the hand that feeds. The curriculum is updated, yes—but only to train the new servants of empire. Tech leaders, Wall Street interns, corporate lawyers. Paid to say “yes,” dressed to say it well.

And if you break the mold? If you ask the wrong questions? You get ignored. Or silenced. Or politely redirected to “more constructive” research.

So the paid schools may look elite. They may impress your relatives. They may open doors. But those doors lead into the machine, not out of it.

Because no matter the tuition, real knowledge still costs something more: disloyalty.

Schools: Total brainwashing

They tell you this system is the only possible one. Trust the establishment, trust people refusing “conspiracy theories.” Only this type of economy is the right system (which means nothing but consumerism with little financing of scientific research).

Newspapers, of course, have their interests, but they tell you that they don’t hide any background eminences.

Historical facts: What they really want

In order for states to compete and wage war, they must have an educated population. The modern school system wasn’t based on some Enlightenment ideas (basically), but because countries wanted to be powerful.

They want obedient, sheep-like, uneducated in the informal sense, stupid, brainwashed populations—and they are winning by a landslide.

Education for all? Only if you can afford the illusion

They say education is universal. That it is the great equalizer. That anyone—regardless of background—can climb the ladder. But the ladder is broken. And for many, it was never even placed on the ground.

Access to education is not a right in practice. It is a privilege dressed up as merit. Poor families are told to value school, but are handed crumbling buildings, overcrowded classrooms, exhausted teachers, and outdated materials. Their children walk through metal detectors, not gates of opportunity. Their textbooks are twenty years old, their counselors are missing, and their futures are written before they can read.

Minorities get promises, slogans, and brochures. But not the same funding. Not the same standards. Not the same hope. They are told to believe in the system that historically erased them. They are expected to thrive in a curriculum that never included them—except as side notes to white achievements or as victims in past chapters.

Rural areas

Rural areas are left to rot. No transportation, no advanced classes. No internet access. But endless lectures about “global competitiveness.” The city kids are criminalized. The village kids are ignored. And both are blamed for “underperformance.”

And when they manage to succeed? When a student breaks the odds and reaches a university? The game changes again. Fees climb. Living costs suffocate. Parents cannot help. Loans enslave. Scholarships are few—and often symbolic. One poor student on a stage. Thousands left outside the building.

Even worse, the education they do get is rigged. It is not designed to liberate, but to domesticate; it teaches the poor how to behave in front of the rich. And it teaches minorities how to survive in spaces that were never made for them. It does not open doors—it trains them to knock more politely, while the privileged children are born already inside.

And those who fall behind? They are blamed. Labeled lazy, unmotivated, uncultured. No one asks who stripped their schools, who silenced their stories, who designed the maze they are trapped in. Instead, politicians blame “family values” or “personal choices” while continuing to fund elite schools and private tutors for their own children.

So when the system says it wants to educate you at the maximum, understand this: it wants to educate some of you—just enough to serve. The rest must remain ignorant enough to obey but trained enough to function. That is not a mistake. That is the system working perfectly.

Let’s go to preschool and higher: IQ-based tasks

We basically know what intelligence is. But what about turning the whole “g factor” theory into IQ-based tasks that would raise the intelligence of children in kindergarten, elementary school, and high school?

We know how to do it. Yet we do not.

Education at its maximum: The shadow of politics

Explore the super-rich families that control the banks and the financial system in the US.

If you think religion is obsolete when it comes to admission into banks, hedge funds, or similar institutions, you are wrong. Being a Catholic or a Jew still makes a difference.

Teach students the constellation of power groups and how the entire system actually works.

What science knows about learning—and schools still ignore

For over a century, psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and instructional design have advanced deep insights into how humans learn. These findings are backed by randomized trials, brain imaging, meta-analyses, and real-world experimentation. Yet most schooling systems ignore them entirely. Why? Because their goal is not to optimize human potential—it is to sort, control, and normalize.

Spaced repetition and forgetting curves

Since Hermann Ebbinghaus in the 1880s, we have known that memory decays rapidly unless reinforced. His forgetting curve showed that people forget most of what they learn within days—unless it is reactivated at increasing intervals. Today, tools like Anki and SuperMemo, built on spaced repetition algorithms, help learners retain information for life.

But in school? Spaced repetition is rarely used. Topics are “covered” once, tested, and abandoned. The calendar controls the content, not cognition. Schools follow a factory model—one batch, one round—while the mind requires iterative exposure.

Retrieval practice: the science of remembering by doing

Modern cognitive psychology emphasizes retrieval-based learning—the act of trying to recall knowledge strengthens memory better than rereading. This is not opinion. Decades of controlled experiments (Roediger, Karpicke, McDermott) show that testing yourself improves long-term retention far more than passive study.

Yet in schools, testing is used for punishment, not for learning. Students are evaluated, ranked, and compared—not trained in how to recall. Practice exams are scarce. Low-stakes quizzing is underused. Feedback is often too late to be effective.

Cognitive load theory: the limits of working memory

Developed by John Sweller and expanded over decades, Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) explains how the brain can only process a few new ideas at once. If overwhelmed—by jargon, distraction, or poor instruction—students retain nothing. Effective teaching must reduce extraneous load, structure concepts gradually, and offer worked examples before open-ended tasks.

But schools often do the opposite: rapid topic shifts, multi-tasking classrooms, and pressure-cooker schedules. Most syllabi are coverage-focused rather than mastery-focused. Textbooks overflow with decorative images and split attention—violating what CLT recommends.

Dual coding theory and multimedia learning

Allan Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory—validated by Richard Mayer and others—shows that learners understand better when verbal and visual content are combined. Diagrams, animations, and narration can double retention if aligned. But cognitive overload and distraction occur when media are misused.

Yet classrooms use visuals poorly: flashy PowerPoints with redundant text, irrelevant animations, or meaningless charts. Instead of scaffolding concepts, they clutter them. Worse, teachers rarely receive training in instructional design, which is a science in itself.

Interleaving and desirable difficulties

In the last decade, cognitive scientists like Robert and Elizabeth Bjork have championed the idea of desirable difficulties. Learning is deeper when material is interleaved (mixed across categories) rather than blocked by topic. Struggle improves mastery—when properly spaced and structured.

But schools still block learning by unit: all of algebra, then all of geometry. All of WWII, then all of the Cold War. This feels easier in the short term but collapses when cross-topic reasoning is needed. The structure pleases bureaucrats, not brains.

Self-regulated learning and metacognition

Modern learning science stresses metacognition—knowing what you know, and what you do not. Students must plan, monitor, and adjust their strategies. This is called self-regulated learning (SRL) and predicts performance better than IQ.

But school treats learners as passive recipients. Schedules are fixed. Questions are given. Reflection is rare. No time is allocated to build study habits, goal-setting, error analysis, or knowledge-monitoring. These are left to chance or home environment.

Motivation theory: autonomy, mastery, purpose

Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (SDT) remains the gold standard in motivation psychology. It says people learn best when they experience autonomy (choice), competence (challenge with feedback), and relatedness (connection). But school denies autonomy by design. Content is pre-decided. Tasks are mandatory. Authority cannot be challenged.

Grading systems ruin intrinsic motivation. Over time, curiosity dies. Students aim for points, not meaning. School becomes performance under threat, not exploration under wonder.

Transfer of learning: the missing goal

Research consistently shows that transfer—the ability to apply knowledge in a new context—is rare unless explicitly trained. Yet curricula are siloed. Students solve physics problems in the classroom but cannot apply them in the lab. They memorize civics facts but do not detect propaganda in real politics.

Real learning means generalization across domains. But schools rarely connect math to economics, history to current affairs, or language to critical thinking. Why? Because that kind of thinking is unpredictable—and dangerous to power.

The illusion of learning styles

Finally, let us bury a myth. Learning styles—visual, auditory, kinesthetic—are seductive, but pseudoscientific. Multiple large-scale studies (Pashler et al., 2008) show that matching instruction to “learning styles” does not improve outcomes. What matters is content-appropriate modality—not the learner’s preference.

Yet schools still waste time diagnosing fake styles instead of designing effective instruction based on real evidence.

Why schools ignore all of this

It is not because they do not know. It is because they are not meant to use it.

A system that truly embraced the science of learning would need to individualize instruction, slow down, reduce bureaucracy, support teacher autonomy, and stop ranking students like products. It would produce thoughtful, reflective, informed people.

But thoughtful people question power. They resist manipulation. They do not vote blindly, consume endlessly, or obey quietly.

So instead, we get an education system that looks scientific—but functions like a ritual. Obedience over mastery. Coverage over comprehension. Speed over depth. Certainty over curiosity.

Because real education would liberate. And liberation is not on the curriculum.

No lifelong learning infrastructure

If they truly wanted to educate you “at the maximum,” learning would never end. It would not be confined to a few years in youth. There would be free, public, lifelong education. You would be able to access university-level courses in law, economics, neuroscience, or political philosophy at any age, at any income.

But the reality? Education ends the moment you stop paying. Once you turn 18 or 22, the ladder disappears. If you want to continue, you need time, money, and connections. Otherwise, you are expected to shut up and get to work. You are told that adulthood is about survival, not growth. That only the elite deserve “continuing education.”

Libraries shrink. Public lectures vanish. Online content hides behind paywalls. And those who do try to self-educate are mocked—labeled “internet experts” or “conspiracy theorists.” Meanwhile, real knowledge stays locked inside institutions designed to protect their hierarchy, not share their insights.

So no, they do not want you to learn forever. They want you to finish just enough school to obey—and then stop thinking altogether.

Teaching is not done by the best minds

Let us be honest. The best minds in a country do not teach in public schools. The most brilliant mathematicians, political theorists, or biologists are not standing in front of 10-year-olds in overcrowded classrooms.

Why? Because the system drives them away.

Salaries are humiliating. Paperwork is endless. Innovation is punished. Questioning curriculum is dangerous. Creativity is smothered under rigid state standards. Even university professors face ideological minefields, funding censorship, and bureaucratic gag orders.

So who teaches? The underpaid. The overworked. Often, those who wanted to make a difference—but were ground down by the very system they tried to uplift.

And those who are truly exceptional? They move into private firms, hedge funds, think tanks, or Silicon Valley labs. Their brilliance serves power, not people.

This is not an accident. The system filters out genius on purpose. Because real educators might inspire revolt. They might teach students how to question, connect, and refuse. And no institution built on obedience can afford that.

Education: They do not want you to think critically

They say they want critical thinkers. But they do not. They want disciplined followers who think just enough to function—but never enough to resist.

In school, you are rewarded for repeating, not questioning. Memorizing definitions. Following formats. Guessing what the teacher wants to hear. The more obedient you are, the higher your grade. The more creative, skeptical, or unconventional you become, the more you are “corrected.”

You are not taught to challenge core assumptions. You are not shown how to investigate power, question institutions, or detect hidden motives in what you are told. “Critical thinking” is reduced to simple exercises—comparing arguments in textbooks, or identifying weak logic in a fake debate. But never in real life. Never in politics, never in economics. Never in religion.

No one teaches you how to follow the money. How to analyze propaganda; how to dissect laws written by lobbyists. How to spot manipulation in ads, textbooks, or speeches. No one shows you how to ask: Who benefits? Who pays? Who decides?

And when you do ask, you are labeled cynical. Troublemaker. Distrustful. You are told to “be positive,” “work within the system,” or “leave it to the experts.”

Because true critical thinking is dangerous. It breaks myths. And it unmasks corruption. It questions authority. And a person who truly thinks for themselves is unpredictable—therefore unmanageable.

So they promote a safe version of critical thinking. One that never touches the foundations, one that keeps the structure intact. One that teaches students how to debate within the sandbox—but never how to flip the table.

They do not fear ignorance. They fear independent minds. That is why real critical thinking is not nurtured—it is weeded out.

Conclusion: Educated just enough to serve, never to challenge

They tell you that education is their gift to you. That the state, the system, the elite, generously build schools to lift you from ignorance. But everything you’ve read so far tells a different story. The curriculum is designed not to enlighten, but to distract. The structure is built not to liberate, but to filter. The results are not knowledge—they are predictability, submission, and self-blame.

Real education would mean developing your intelligence to its peak. It would mean teaching how power operates, how systems rig outcomes, how narratives are manufactured. It would mean learning not just how the world works—but why it works the way it does, and who benefits from keeping it that way.

Instead, you get stories. Safe subjects. Timetables. Rules. Obsolete methods. Myths of equality. And behind it all, a machine that tells you this is for your own good. That you are free. That this is the best system the world can offer.

But you are not free. You are shaped, you are packaged. You are mentally fenced in before you ever become a threat.

They do not fear ignorance. They fear awakening.

And that is why they will never, ever educate you at the maximum.