America’s Decline Attributed to Compulsory Schooling: Richard Grove on WHD

HitlerYouth

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already…. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” – Adolph Hitler

Tired of giving your first born over to Moloch?  Want to liberate future minds from the prussian style of indoctrination, better known as government schooling?  Listen now as Richard Grove of TragedyandHope.com and Gary Franchi of RTR.org document the horrific effects of collectivist brainwashing and provide answers to the grotesque practice of government schooling.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Charlie Primero

    http://tragedyandhope.com is the best education website on the Net, bar none.

    • The Well Dressed Man

      interesting link, CP. Found one article there that ties together a great deal of interesting data: https://www.tragedyandhope.com/manufacturing-the-deadhead-a-product-of-social-engineering/

      • egggg

        Try and find of copy of William Sargant’s Battle for the Mind. It was written in the 50s and lays out age-old methods of mind-control involving religion, dance, music & drugs. That the counterculture was manipulated by ‘someone’ has been known since day one and that manipulation still goes on today. There was even a British movie, Privilege, made in the 60s about a pop star who is used to control the masses in a fascist future Britain, details here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062155/

  • Liam_McGonagle

    I get the idea, and I don’t entirely disagree with it. But I think my experienced of adulthood has been greatly enhanced by having something to rebel against.

    Plus, I’m fairly certain that some of the the things I learned against my will were necessary prerequisites for some of my favorite subsequent discoveries.

    • Chattur’gha

      You’re talking like the alternative to compulsory schooling is no education at all.

      Also I suspect that more people would find things to rebel against if they weren’t indoctrinated into not questioning authority and not thinking critically.

      People might also be more likely to learn how to learn instead of memorizing facts only to forget them shortly after the exam.

      • egggg

        But that’s not really going to happen with modern media working away at their brains and the group conformity enforced thus. Jan is an interesting example of someone who is educated, who claims he’s able to think yet his politics have been sliding ever more to the crazy wing of the libertarians. You’d expect him to use his logical deductive powers to see through the BS of giant corporations, or for that matter libertarian think-tanks funded by said corporations. But… he doesn’t. He just spews ‘I know all the answers, the world is run by evil socialists’ smugness which renders even his more interesting work suspect. Yikes, I even heard him going on about his amazing homeopathic treatment in one podcast. Keep taking those (sugar) tablets, man…

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    An interesting problem that tragedy and hope, and really the entire new counter-culture in general falls into is the overgeneralization of all authority as a negative.

    If you want revolution on the claim that authority is evil, then paradoxically your revolution has no authority to claim that authority is evil.

    some statements sound… off… such as where he says something to the extent of ‘normal schools convince us that slavery and liberty are the same thing’. Sounds like 1984 is being taken a little too literally here. (unless he’s trying to say that’s what “liberating the slaves” means, but that’s a bit of a stretch)

    Its strange but the mixing of talking about analysis of statements makes me analyze their own statements, and it is clear there is a mud of fanatical bias cloaked in mantras of “logic and reason”

    Edit: of course i think it needs to be stated that certain kinds of social structures need fanatical opposition, but simultaneously fanaticism is mutually exclusive with logic and reason. yet another paradox going on.

    • Monkey See Monkey Do

      They are just against their ideas of authority. Then they point to academic authorities as the foundations of their knowledge. All that classical education theory is taken as fact and then twisted into a little reality tunnel where they feel nice and comfortable, no grey areas. “Logic and reason” almost produces a worse type of fanaticism than its counterpart in myth literalism.

      • Chattur’gha

        “Then they point to academic authorities as the foundations of their knowledge.”

        No they are not. That would be arguing from authority. The whole point of tragedy and hope is NOT to do that, but to come to your own conclusions based on what can actually be observed in reality.

    • Chattur’gha

      I would like to point out that in your first sentence you first make a huge generalization and then condemn overgeneralizing. Aside from that there’s nothing inherently wrong with generalizations. They are necessary to form any idea concerning a structure that’s bigger than one individual.

      Also I think you are presuming a little to much when you say that Richard Grove’s position is “all authority is evil”. Grove’s philosophy is based more on “the initiation of force is evil/immoral”. Besides there is a difference between authority based on the monopoly of force and coercion like that of governments and moral authority based on having a belief system that is based on sound logic and the conviction that every person has innate rights that don’t have to be “bestowed” by the state.

      The statement ‘normal schools convince us that slavery and liberty are the same thing’ is not outlandish or “off” in my opinion. Just look at the amount of people thinking they are free and who can’t be shocked by any amount of whistle blowing about government atrocities, misrepresentation, extortion and destruction of their supposedly inalienable rights.

      “it is clear there is a mud of fanatical bias cloaked in mantras of “logic and reason””

      This is not clear at all to me. Please elaborate.

      “fanaticism is mutually exclusive with logic and reason. yet another paradox going on.”

      Your argument is built on the premise that Grove’s view are fanatical. But of what value is this statement if I can’t know who you came to this premise. Surely it is not just based on subjective feelings and emotional reaction alone.

      Please excuse me if this comes off as polemic or overly confrontational. I don’t mean to attack you personally. This is just the way I feel about your comment.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        Definitely not overly confrontational you make good points. My qualms are vague even to me, so you’re helping define them.

        I’ll start with their strange paradoxical fanatacism. The easiest way to define the problem here, is that the trivium is a Philosophy, and -not- a Science. It is a way of thinking, not a method of accumulating and organizing facts. The fanatacism comes from the belief that if you use these methods you will be in the right, because you used them and anyone else that used them -must- have drawn the same conclusion. Therefore anyone who disagrees with you, has used the trivium wrong or not at all. It also carries along that if you memorize all your fallacies, that somehow equates to an “innoculation” and thus you’re immune to performing them. and I can guarantee that there is no immunity created.

        One of my biggest problems here, is that it is absolutely exhausting to argue against. Once the argument starts it becomes a dick-wagging contest of fallacy calling, until someone calls out the “fallacy fallacy”. The only defense i can think about against this is calling out my own fallacies, I know it seems like i’m making a bunch of assumptions. But they are impressions that I have made from observing a number of examples. I don’t have the examples on hand, because it would be exhausting to try to keep records of such minute things. Thus people will call out that I do not supply evidence. Thus, my next problem with the mindset: an overemphasis in the faith in “evidence” and an under-emphasis in the faith of the more human thoughts, and feelings.

        I once heard someone define War as a self replicating force. A warlike culture attacks an unwarlike culture, giving the 2nd group 3 options: 1) Become warlike, and defend itself, 2) Become warlike, and attack a neighbor to survive, 3) Die…. All 3 options spread war-culture. I see the trivium fanatacism in much the same light. It is intellectual bullying of a completely different type than the sophistry it fights against.

        Finally, much like all ideologies, in the realm of trivium fanatacism, there are linkages being made that can not be done in good faith. The biggest one, is the assumption that “logic”, “reason”, and “truth” can be linked to “goodness”, “morality” and “freedom”. We would all like them to be linked. The world would make more sense, but that doesn’t change it from being ideological wishful thinking.

        • echar

          Don’t forget that the fallacies card is essentially a cheap trick in debate. A way to razzle-dazzle the opponent and not a sure sign of truth or fact. Some are fooled by something or someone with a smart appearance, and some are smart enough to know this.

          • gustave courbet

            I agree that pointing out fallacies can be a fallacious method of argument (straw man), but that doesn’t mean that this is necessarily so. If someone is using specious reasoning, or using non-sequitors in what you presumed was to be a rational discourse, you have little choice but to point this out or disengage from the discussion.

          • echar

            From my experience, online the fallacy card is an escape hatch and a rather new one. Perhaps in a debate, where there are rules and one without all the answers and more readily at their finger tips.

            From my perspective, the most common group using the fallacy card are the ones benefiting from a web of fallacies. Many conspiracy theorists thrive on the absence of facts, and abundance of half truths. It’s like the hustler blaming the hustled for making it so easy.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Exactly. Thank you Gustave.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Just gonna reflect back to you a few gems from above,

          “I know it seems like i’m making a bunch of assumptions. But they are
          impressions that I have made from observing a number of examples. I
          don’t have the examples on hand, because it would be exhausting to try
          to keep records of such minute things.”

          So when push comes to shove you just excuse yourself for being incapable of maintaining a logical progression in your “arguments”? You are cavalierly throwing around words like “fanaticism” and “sophistry” here in describing Richard Grove’s work, and the Trivium method but you can’t be bothered to cite one actual quote or example? You are a case study in illogic and it makes sense why you would rail against anyone working to scientifically philosophize as you still believe them to be separate. Understanding fallacies is prerequisite for intellectual self-defense. Your argument is devoid of sense entirely.

          To then presume that honing one’s ability to defend oneself inevitably creates intellectual “bullying” is laughably absurd.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            There are many different kinds of intellectual self defense. There are many different kinds of intellectual attack. I definitely did not say the fanatics and the sophists were the same people; they are diametrically opposed. I just happen to be on neither side… Not even on the line dividing them.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            So your like a sophistic superposition imagining all states, belonging to none and living in your own head. See the problem with that is it doesn’t relate to the information at hand one bit, you’ve just hijacked a thread with a meandering and defenseless nonsequitorial monologue. Save everyone in the future and try to relate to the matter at hand.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            I was just doing some internet hydrofracking, Deep cracks, high pressure injection of material, extracting the product. Processing. Processing. Processing. Beep. Beep. Beep.

    • Guest

      I’ve been listening to some of their older pod-casts for the past couple
      of days and noticed a few things that could be chalked up to ignorance,
      but it’s hard to take seriously that they’re not aware.

      In
      particular, there was a segment in which the phrase “the perfect product
      would…” was repeated over and over in a nearly-hypnotic manner, for
      WAY TOO long, to the point where I had to skip ahead because I felt
      myself becoming almost entranced (that was in “The Peace Revolution –
      Parrhesia / A Curriculum for Intellectual Self Defense”).

      In
      another pod-cast (I think this one was “The Peace Revolution- The
      Scientific Racism of Eugenics and Social Darwinism”) at the start of the
      pod-cast, a series of clips were linked together to associate the ideas
      in a very propaganda-like way, though maybe he just thought it was
      “arty”. There was no explanation or reasoning for why these concepts
      should necessarily be linked, unless it is meant to be understood from
      hearing the rest of their pod-casts…

      I just thought it was odd,
      and like you said “Its strange but the mixing of talking about analysis
      of statements makes me analyze their own statements”…not just their
      statements, but also their style. I’m usually very aware of non-verbal
      tactics, but these stood out when I wasn’t necessarily searching for
      them.

      • Charlie Primero

        About the older podcasts, T&H views have evolved over time, as should anyone’s. Example; they used to be Greenbackers. No more.
        There is a thread on the T&H forum about this.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      “If you want revolution on the claim that authority is evil, then
      paradoxically your revolution has no authority to claim that authority
      is evil.” So where do you get this exactly? This is the crux of your argument, please provide a citation to substantiate your above conclusion.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      “If you want revolution on the claim that authority is evil, then
      paradoxically your revolution has no authority to claim that authority
      is evil.”

      So where do you get this exactly? As this is the crux of your
      argument, it requires some verification other than to be taken at face value no? Please provide a citation to substantiate your above
      presumption. If Grove never states this explicitly and you are only making an implicit assumption, then you would in fact be guilty of the logical fallacy known as a straw man attack. Either he says this and your point is valid, or you made it up and attack him over it. The irony of utilizing a logical fallacy here is hopefully not lost on you.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        No, because you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a shill for tragedy and hope i intend to speak only in fallacies, and later cite the fallacy fallacy any time you contest anything I say (as it will undoubtedly be calling out a fallacy rather than making a useful point).

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          So now I’m a “shill” because I point out that you don’t understand why what you are saying is incorrect, given your own speech?

          You have a nice cozy sophist-icated defense mechanism going here dont’cha.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            all’s fair in love and war.
            Love,
            CG <3

    • gustave courbet

      While I see your point from a basic philosophical or abstracted perspective, I would disagree with some of your positions. Firstly, the problem of authority as approached by Grove is approached from an historical perspective. The axiom that “power corrupts…” is pretty well borne out by history. The decentralization of authority is one of the primary themes of Grove’s and other libertarian/anarchist thinkers for good reason. Secondly his bias is unfortunately less fanatical than it might first appear. Grove is a corporate whistle-blower thrust out of the elite milieu by his unwillingness to participate in fraud. He began his career as a very ‘establishment’ guy who was rudely awakened. Thirdly, he does his research. The historical actors that have constructed many of the large institutions we take for granted did so, not out of altruism but as a means of social control and they often said so explicitly. I do agree that his emphasis on logic and reason is problematic in some ways, but having followed him for a while, I think he genuinely does try to apply analysis to info before forming his opinions.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        I know I’m getting into unanswerable questions here, but if power corrupts absolutely, what power can fight corruption without eventually becoming corrupted itself? I suppose there are two possible answers to this: 1)”All is hopeless”; probably the stance of TPTB or 2) the axiom that “power corrupts absolutely” is false. I lean towards the latter with the caveat that obviously the current power structure is corrupt.

        I must admit though that I was probably pushing (a little) too much on Grove here due to his association with Jan Irving. Maybe I wanted to wait a little to see Camron blow a some more steam though.

        • jnana

          there is an alternative and its to not play the power game. Find friends who are cool to play with and don’t want to hurt. make those who play power games jealous of you and yer friends games by having a truly good time, not harming. maybe you will still suffer persecution at the hands of the powerful, but you didn’t give in.
          As PKD says, ” if you fight the empire, you become the empire”

  • razzlebathbone

    Communities have a responsibility to help children, therefore Hitler.

    Fuck this fascist dirtbag for associating free and critical thinking with his Talibaptist poison.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      Its the only logical conclusion; clearly you need to use the trivium to make these conclusions. You are an afraid sheep and can’t handle the truth… /sarcasm

      • egggg

        At the bottom of Jan’s website it says (C) 2013 Gnostic Media. Does that mean big government is okay when it enforces copyright law and related rules such as patents?

        As for government schooling, it certainly has its problems but I’d bet your average kid is more brainwashed by TV & media than anything they learn in school. Meanwhile if the schools are privatised they can be brainwashed by the Church/Scientologists/Big Business instead.

    • misinformation

      I think you missed the point. “Communities ‘OWN’ children” therefore (in your phrasing) Hitler.

    • gustave courbet

      Guh?

  • DeepCough

    The Hitler references were a tad redundant, but despite that, compulsory education
    is an industrial practice used to get the people to work and keep them occupied. The problem with this is that the people are being made stupid because they are being occupied with useless information and mind-numbing study. Perhaps the most insane thing about the American education system is that people are expected to go through school for 10 years only to competefor the chance to pay for “real education” from a college or university. The difference with German schools is that kids can get vocational training, which makes them ready for the workforce when they become legal adults.

  • VaudeVillain

    “America was founded as a nation that cherished and protected individual liberty, yet today it is arguably one of the most collectivist societies on the planet.”

    You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

    This is why I can never be a full on anarchist or a libertarian; my mind recoils at this level of stupid.

    • echar

      This is why I can’t be an Anarchist

      Whitest Kids U’ Know – Anarchy
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKERC6F7mSM

      • Chattur’gha

        Come on, really? This is just the most cliche representation of anarchism possible. There are so many false assumptions in there. It’s comedy. I won’t go over all of these as I have posted a gigantic comment here already, but the main assumption seems to be “anarchy means no cooperation or division of labor”.

        If this is really your idea of anarchism/voluntarism please have a listen to this 15min audio essay outlining how complex systems of voluntary interaction already work without government intervention.

        http://mises.org/media/3078/I-Pencil

        • gustave courbet

          Exactly. One reason I am often reticent to refer to myself as an anarchist in open discussion is because the term has been so thoroughly muddled. People imagine black-blockers breaking bank windows.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Genuinely honest question though, Do you consider black-blockers in no way anarchists? If not, then it’s westborough baptist church syndrome. They shit all over the name, and only anarchists will be the ones that care enough to clean it up.

            If they are anarchists though, then you need to figure out how to hide them for public relationship purposes (even though I’d expect public relations a repulsive concept to anarchists)

  • echar

    I am trying to be open, yet I am finding that anything I see linked to Jan Irving and Gnostic Media creates a sense of non authenticity for me. Perhaps if this wasn’t so clearly linked, I’d take it more seriously. It appears to me, to be propaganda designed to suggest others view the way Gnostic Media has deemed is acceptable perceptions.

    In a nut-shell, I cannot take Jan Irving seriously nor anyone deliberately associated.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      I find the trivium interesting, but when introduced by Jan i find it repulsive.

      • echar

        My experience exactly.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          I think you guys need to stop focusing on (killing) the messenger and
          heed the message here. We aren’t talking musical interests here. We
          are talking about proving methodologies for processing information.//

          • echar

            A process I have no interest in, no matter how many times it is repeated.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            That is like saying you have no interest in gravity because you fell down and scraped your knee once.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            That analogy says so many things about the way you think. Problems that clearly the trivium did not solve.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            The analogy is as clear as day ;)

            Explain to me how I think then smarty pants. It appears neither of you really understand what the trivium method is or its purpose given your repetitive abuses of logic here.

            It appears you just want to sound off without backing anything you say in a way that can be verified independently. When asked for clarity you just rinse, wash, and repeat the same sequence, employing techniques (consciously or otherwise) which demonstrate your contempt for what is only process of vetting information and establishing logical precedence in ones thinking.

            Railing against that is pointless obviously. That is if you understand what it is you are railing against.

            1+1 = 2 in my mind, how about yours?

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            I understand what the trivium is, and i have no problems with it. I do however have a huge problem with an attitude of self superiority that comes with it, and i see Jan as the source, and you as a vessel.

            Why is that analogy absurd? Well for one you’re comparing the realms of physical law and intellectual tactics. second the only link between those two is that you can get “hurt”. Third, that assuming echar has been (or even could be “hurt”) by the trivium. Third, that the trivium is as pure and natural and obvious as gravity. Fourth, that the trivium is the one true way, and other tactics and belief systems are wrong and even evil(very evangelical of you). Fifth that you will assume that i’m intellectually bankrupt because i did not search through the mountains of your text here and other locations to “prove” this sentence and ones preceding it.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “I understand what the trivium is, and i have no problems with it.” -Chaorder Gradient.

            You just keep telling yourself that Chaorder.

            Just keep in mind other people are aware of when you use silly techniques of sophistry, and then claim you are not, as though none is the wiser.

            My analogy was that to avoid learning, because it offends one’s sensibilities, is a child like response to the challenges of reality. Therefore it as though one were to skin their knee (yaknow like when you are little kid) and then refuse to comprehend the forces that created the pain, or realization of a new aspect of reality/life/logic in the first place.

            Given your previous speech, I’m presuming you will rail against pain now for being holier than though, and for supposedly feigning mental superiority, or perhaps just for daring to present itself to you? (The Nerve!) Or perhaps gravity? Nah, just stick with Jan Irvin because he rubs you the wrong way, kill all messengers, you are obviously applying the trivium you say you understand here, and I am definitely not being sarcastic….

            Your interpretation, while demonstrating further your disconnect, is your own and not my intention whatsoever.

            Just to be clear and avoid further straw man attacks or you attempting to put words in my mouth.

            So since you say you understand the trivium, why do you continue to utilize ad hominem attacks, non sequiturs, red herrings and the like in your speech?

            I never said you were intellectually bankrupt now did I. I simply pointed out the illogic in your speech and asked that you be aware of it to save everyone’s time.

            See I imagine that if more people understood these things, we could start constructive conversations and use our energy towards deconstructing the lies that bind. Rather than say feeding your apparent need for coquettish and narcissistic supply.

            If that makes me “evangelical” in your book, perhaps it is your own negative experiences with christianity that require attention, the irony of your insistent attempts at killing the messenger here does not elude me.

            Look, I may be harsh, it’s only because you have increasingly been ridiculous here. Try not to take it personal, just think about what you are saying next time.

            Perhaps if I knew who you were, we could sit down over a beer rather than from behind keyboards without the abstraction of depleted interaction, I would employ more “emotional” intelligence, but given that this is not the first time I’ve gone through this, I’m a bit jaded and lacking patience at the moment.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Nothings being taken personally. I’m sure if we were sitting down to a beer we’d be a lot more cordial, as I’d be taking you (and myself) a little more seriously. I find it hard to take things so seriously over zee interwebs, you know.

            I’m sorry if I’ve been.. I don’t know if Cruel is the right word… but you can obviously tell that i’m being ridiculous, and not talking seriously, why do you keep engaging it?

            I guess I’ll lay out whats going on here. You would prefer the world to properly use the trivium and not use it inaccurately (or backwards as rhetoric logic grammar). I don’t think I’m putting words in your mouth here. In all honesty I would love to see that world too. I hate it when i see a commercial that says “ask your doctor about xyz Meds” and I hate it when i see a politician lie with a smile on his face.

            But, unfortunately I also understand that sophistry -does- work. It works on this society like a strong drug works on a junkie. This is a public relations problem. How do you teach a bunch of people who have been taught to hate learning that they are stupid? I don’t think I’m making anything up when i say not everyone wishes to know things. I don’t necessarily think that it is hopeless, but it is a very hard problem. I will admit that I was probably harder on T&H than necessary, but I do wonder if they aren’t a little disillusioned in the belief that everyone can be saved so to speak.

            If everyone cannot be taught properly, what is to be done with those people? Should they be ostracized? or maybe should they be kept in line with a little sophistry? Or should we just not think about the problem and assume it will go away eventually? What if it doesn’t? Have we created a new hypothetical underclass? Is that okay?

            What if they organize and become a powerful force? Has this ever happened before?

          • echar

            No it is not.

          • echar

            A process I have no interest in, no matter how many times it is repeated.

          • gustave courbet

            Sound advice. But it is important to keep in mind that we are emotional creatures and often see the world through the lens of subconscious biases. If someone’s demeanor is off-putting, they will have difficulty communicating their position despite its accuracy or logical legitimacy. Grove is a good example of someone who is pretty good at approaching dialogue with both logic and emotional intelligence, but that approach is unfortunately rare. So many of us fall into the trap of wisdom without compassion…

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Wisdom without compassion. Must ponder on this a bit.

            I must say, you know how to properly disagree with someone.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        I think you guys need to stop focusing on (killing) the messenger and heed the message here. We aren’t talking musical interests here. We are talking about proving methodologies for processing information.

        • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

          all interests are musical interests. If the messenger is corrupting a message, then everyone should want to kill him, even the message sender.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Again, please provide your pertinent examples of where you see him corrupting a message, otherwise you are expecting me to take your word at face value and presume that your pejorative opinion is something more. At this point you are the message sender but the message is anecdotal and hearsay alone apparently.

    • moremisinformation

      Interesting. I happen to get a lot out of Tragedy and Hope. While agreeing with some parts of some of the critiques above, I don’t find them to be wholly accurate of my interpretation of what’s going on at T&H.

      However, listening to Jan Irving lately who, to use his own tiresome rant-language, is strong on grammar, makes dubious leaps in his logic and is nearly unlistenable in his rhetoric, has made me question how Richard Grove continues to support him so closely. As time goes on, Irving sounds more and more insane which, does indeed call into question, Grove’s continued association with him.

      • echar

        I will give T&H a chance. I appreciate you sharing your experience with me.

        • moremisinformation

          You said you’ll give them a chance so maybe this is redundant. However, I really have gotten a lot of value from T&H. I went through a, ‘this is the answer’, kind of phase but have mostly put ‘them’ in a more appropriate light, with respect to my own life. Charlie Primero (or Prime, as he is known at T&H), in this thread is not off (imo), with his statement.

          If you haven’t seen it, the five hour (yes, that long) interview with John Taylor Gatto is mind expanding (if one wishes, they also have the interview, along with about another 8 hours of commentary attached).

          Again, I feel like I’ve been able to put a lot of my own personal baggage and background into definable perspective through the T&H lens. Your mileage may vary.

          Also, for a deeper discussion of the topic of this thread, another T&H affiliate that I have gotten at leas as much value out of, is the School Sucks Podcast.

          • echar

            I have the Gatto interview bookmarked, I have been aware of him for years. I will have to watch it. Thank you for more of your experience.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Guilt by association fallacy eh? :) Seriously, you “had” to see that coming. So beyond your feelings on the matter, care to cite any pertinent concrete examples of intellectual dishonesty or should we just take your gut reaction as “reason” enough?

      • echar

        Mostly because Aldous Huxley is one of my heroes.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Thank you for being honest here echar. It’s not easy to find out that people we admire are actually wolves in sheeps clothing such as the fabian socialist Huxley and family. Trust me I can sympathize having learned discomforting information about Leary, McKenna, McCluhan etc from Jan. Still, we have to attempt to be as honest and rational as possible about these cultural icons own failings and not take it out on the messenger.

          • echar

            No, Jan attempted to take a poop on the names of some amazing people in an obvious ruse to make a name for himself. I implore you to set down the koolaid and forget the thought viruses you have learned from this person.

          • jnana

            before I ever heard of gnostic media, I had these ideas about Huxley and leary and others(concerning possible fascistic/bad socialistic tendencies), probably stemming from some things they write. but I do like a lot of their writings, too.
            so it was interesting for me to hear that others think that about them, too. but ive yet to really delve into their arguments and proofs. I, personally, just had a hunch.

          • echar

            I am struggling to say this in a respectful manner. Here goes… Yours views and opinions on this matter have zero relevance to me. You talk a good game, I’ll give you that, yet please note that your concepts are not mine.

          • jnana

            your problem, not mine, man.
            I think you may be prejudiced. Have fun with that.

          • echar

            I think you are delusional. Please get help.

          • jnana

            remember:
            projection makes perception.

          • echar

            I own that I am prone to delusions, as are all of us. I meant that from the heart btw. Also on that day in that moment I was being a dick. Please accept my apology.

      • echar

        Mostly because Aldous Huxley is one of my heroes.

    • Charlie Primero

      Jan is a good guy. I’ve gone to lunch with him. It’s true that his presentation style can be off-putting, but if you *really* dig in, you’ll discover his research and documentation is top-notch.
      Despite his aggressive style, he is honest. He will change views. Example: Watch the interview from last year where Molynuex takes him apart on gold and competitive currencies. Jan threw a fit at the time, but he is no longer advocates government currencies.
      I like Jan, but don’t mind calling him a dick when he acts like one. I hope he would do the same for me.

      • echar

        I don’t like you either, nor care one iota for or about his research. It will do me no earthly or otherwise good.

        • Charlie Primero

          Ha! You go girl! :-)

      • echar

        I don’t like you either, nor care one iota for or about his research. It will do me no earthly or otherwise good.

  • Deteis

    Did they really introduce their message with a quote from Hitler?

  • BuzzCoastin

    there are four things I learned in school
    that have been beneficial throughout my life
    reading, writing, cyphering and parallel parking
    but
    I suspect I could have learned these things without school
    and
    everything else I learned of value
    has come from reading, experience & travel

    right now the internet is an unparallelled educational resource
    which most humans are using for entertrainment and not education

  • Charlie Primero

    I seed The Ultimate History Guide with John Taylor Gatto.

    5-hour course, nice metatags, MP4 Format 720p HD Video

    http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/7576463/Ultimate_History_Lesson_with_John_Taylor_Gatto_2012

  • jnana

    a curriculum developed to learn autonomously? sounds oxymoronic. but, yeah, I get their message. cool.

    I read shit like this back in the day, in high school. there were a few good books that encouraged me to drop out.

    1. Unjobbing by?

    2.Dropping Out by?

    3. Lies My Teacher Told Me by?

    4. People’s History of the U.S. by Howard zinn

    5. No Logo by Naomi Klein
    and a bunch of others.

  • jnana

    I never let my schooling interfere with my education

  • Microhero

    Sounds like a bunch of Randist narrowminded bullshit. If reason and logic and observation of reality is to be the golden standard for human behaviour, it should be easy to “observe” that no one, not a single human being is only reasonable and logical, nor can he/she be.

    We are complex social-emotional-rational-logical (in that order) beings, and most of the time we are meerly on autopilot, unaware of the underliyng processes that determine our choices.

    The problem with mandatory education is clearly not the fact that it is mandatory, but the fact that it is a “one size fits all” solution to the problem of what kind of basic knowledge should the majority of us have in order to function as a capable cooperative society.

    That is the human matrix, social cooperation, if we deny commonality altoghether, as a threat to individuality we will be breaking up the fabric that holds societies together. As annoying as it might be for some, we are far more interdependant than our logical rational minds permit us to realize.

    Also… Any extreme perspective on anything, as good a direction as it might point towards, is inevitably wrong..

    • misinformation

      Seems like you are making a lot of assumptions here. I don’t hear that ‘reason and logic are the gold standard for human behaviour’. I’m not even sure what that means exactly. I also didn’t hear any point being made to the idea that ‘human beings should or could be reasonable and logical, only’. You’re knocking down points-of-view that are only being made by you.

      ‘We are complex social-emotional-rational-logical (in that order) beings,’

      That’s a pretty declarative statement. How do you come up with that with such certainty?

      ‘most of the time we are meerly on autopilot, unaware of the underliyng processes that determine our choices.’

      I believe you’re correct when it comes to things like eating, sleeping, breathing, etc but when considering whether information coming at me is useful, bullshit, etc. I don’t agree that ‘we’ are on autopilot.

      ‘The problem with mandatory education is clearly not the fact that it is mandatory’

      Another large declaration. Why is it that there is only one problem with mandatory school. I happen to agree that A problem with compulsory schooling, is that it is compulsory. So it isn’t all that clear to me.

      ‘That is the human matrix, social cooperation, if we deny commonality altoghether, as a threat to individuality we will be breaking up the fabric that holds societies together. As annoying as it might be for some, we are far more interdependant than our logical rational minds permit us to realize.’

      This is a little confusing to me, could you try to reword this? It sounds again like you’re making arguments against something that isn’t being said. Individualism and social cooperation are not mutually exclusive. Nor is interdependence and individualism.

      ‘Any extreme perspective on anything, as good a direction as it might point towards, is inevitably wrong’

      Ironically, this is an extreme perspective.

    • misinformation

      Seems like you are making a lot of assumptions here. I don’t hear that ‘reason and logic are the gold standard for human behaviour’. I’m not even sure what that means exactly. I also didn’t hear any point being made to the idea that ‘human beings should or could be reasonable and logical, only’. You’re knocking down points-of-view that are only being made by you.

      ‘We are complex social-emotional-rational-logical (in that order) beings,’

      That’s a pretty declarative statement. How do you come up with that with such certainty?

      ‘most of the time we are meerly on autopilot, unaware of the underliyng processes that determine our choices.’

      I believe you’re correct when it comes to things like eating, sleeping, breathing, etc but when considering whether information coming at me is useful, bullshit, etc. I don’t agree that ‘we’ are on autopilot.

      ‘The problem with mandatory education is clearly not the fact that it is mandatory’

      Another large declaration. Why is it that there is only one problem with mandatory school. I happen to agree that A problem with compulsory schooling, is that it is compulsory. So it isn’t all that clear to me.

      ‘That is the human matrix, social cooperation, if we deny commonality altoghether, as a threat to individuality we will be breaking up the fabric that holds societies together. As annoying as it might be for some, we are far more interdependant than our logical rational minds permit us to realize.’

      This is a little confusing to me, could you try to reword this? It sounds again like you’re making arguments against something that isn’t being said. Individualism and social cooperation are not mutually exclusive. Nor is interdependence and individualism.

      ‘Any extreme perspective on anything, as good a direction as it might point towards, is inevitably wrong’

      Ironically, this is an extreme perspective.

21