Brian took two courses in Russian History and wanted to do a paper on Stalin that focused on his psychology and upbringing. The professor was enamored of the deterministic model of history and believed history makes men, men don’t make history. So if not Stalin, a virtual clone of Stalin would have been created by events, and not responsible for the events, and the individual actor was irrelevant. Nevertheless, the professor suggested books by other historians he disagreed with, which the student eagerly pursued. He got an A-minus for his efforts, and his professor was candid in admitting the paper was graded down solely because the professor personally disagreed with the academics the student cited in his paper. What is Creator’s perspective?

This is a good illustration of how academicians responsible for teaching others come to wield great power and can make quite arbitrary decisions and judgments that will, in effect, punish others when it is a consequence, in part at least, of their own doing, as in this case, in suggesting countering opinion as a source of reference but then balking if it was even looked at and brought into the discussion. This professor's mind was clearly closed on the matter, so anything the student found that actually provided a rationale that was logical and valid, because it was based on scientific observation after all, would be summarily dismissed by the closed-minded professor in spite of his setting things in motion in being aware of the counterarguments, and mentioning that to the student by way of acknowledging he was at least coming up with ideas, even though he believed the student's ideas were faulty. This is a good example of what mind control does, it creates a very solidly entrenched groupthink where most scholars and authorities within a field of inquiry will hold similar views, at least in those things they reject out of hand. So there is no opposition to misguided thinking, false beliefs that will be, in the end, a dead-end because they are misguided to begin with. Any kind of make-work and exploration of blind alleys will be allowed with no opposition from the interlopers wanting to constrain humanity. They want everyone to be sidelined and pursuing unproductive approaches, that are essentially a kind of phantom, that will be unrewarding. It is when a creative, open-minded individual begins sniffing out the truth, and is beginning to see the outlines of a path that will be productive in truly unearthing important discoveries, there will be a wall of resistance in their way. That is the fence around the collective power of cultivated ignorance that is "groupthink," so any effort to pursue the unconventional, or even novel in certain ways, will be discouraged and rejected by the gatekeepers—the opinion leaders in whatever field of scholarly inquiry is involved.