Interview 1381 - The Past, Present and Future of Education

08/27/201849 Comments

James Corbett and Hunter Maats join Ricky Varandas on The Ripple Effect to continue their previous conversation of the problems of the current system of schooling and the solutions to that system. Along the way, they debate licensing, statism, the FDA and other topics. (WARNING TO SENSITIVE EARS: four-letter words throughout this conversation)

The Ripple Effect podcast

Interview 1375 - The Problem With Schooling on The Ripple Effect

Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” – FLNWO #35

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (49)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. pearl says:

    Talk about a loaded podcast. Bless Ricky Verandas for even trying, but I don’t see this going beyond the audience’s settling in to gorge on popcorn and cheer on their team.

    But the entire time I was watching this, the following words of a major catalyst in my awakening (beginning with the philosophical framework that is Protestantism) kept ringing in my ears:

    The Gospel According to John Immel, chapter 3:1-3

    1. All people act logically from their assumptions.

    2. It does not matter how inconsistent the ideas or insane the rationale. They will act until that logic is fulfilled.

    3. Therefore, when you see masses of people taking the same destructive actions, if you find the assumptions, you will find the cause.

    • weilunion says:

      We should all be learning how to reason within multiple points of view to arrive at reasoned judgment.


      Questioning ourselves and others is key.

      We should not go to school to learn how to make a living, but to learn how to live.

      What makes us exceptional as a species,as far as we know, is that humans have the ability to reason.

      But how many people can define reasoning, or critical thinking, the other term used?

      Few can, for they are taught what to think and not how to think.

      And one can learn how to think critically. We are not born critical thinkers, we must become critical thinkers and thus the role of a teacher is not to teach, in the traditional sense, but how to organize opportunities for others to learn to think critically.

      Thus, the role of anorexic bulimic learning and the ‘teacher’ must be replaced by midwives, who help people learn how to think, not what to think. Help them give birth to learning.

      • weilunion says:

        Scroll down the Counterpunch article, sited in the comment above, and sited again below, and find the debate we should be having, as to education.

        Though lively, this was not an eyeopener for educational issues.

        • pearl says:

          Insightful comment, Weilunion, and I appreciate the link to the newsletter.

          Teaching ourselves to think critically, questioning ourselves and others, and learn how to live. Great points!

          The term “critical thinking” is tossed around so carelessly, that it means little. No doubt Maats believes his superior critical thinking saved him from succumbing to “conspiracy theorists”. So, yeah, being a home schooling mom of three (two in college, remaining one having two years to go) I’d really like to get this right.

      • FlyingAxblade says:

        the goal of education, public, should be all geared to graduating as an EMT.

    • generalbottlewasher says:

      You have an astute observation here Pearl. The assumption is prussian system and Milner, Carnegie and Rockefeller. We are hearing that conversation here trying to choose a new School Board member. Assumptions came up only once and like a skunk in the room everyone had the same assumption. When every one stinks there is no stinking going on if there is no knowledge of other older systems that worked well before CFR did away with them.

      • pearl says:

        “Assumptions came up only once and like a skunk in the room everyone had the same assumption.”

        Infuriating. Given the steady flow of that Prussian model Monday through Friday, reinforced by Luther/Calvin via Sunday sermons and church socials, it’s no wonder.

  2. manbearpig says:

    “…be slightly less rapey…” hmmmm

    “the United States is one of the most accountable mafias you’re going to find in the world…” hmmmm

    If accountability equates with rapiness than this is apparently true…

    according to the two sources below The United States is about 14th out of 119 for being the “rapiest” country in the world…with South Africa number 1

    and Sweden number 5…

    chilling from the country that’s been the most effective at spreading its Uncle Sam / Mickey Mouse / Frat boy culture across the world…

    but, of course, it depends on if you believe the sources…

    • manbearpig says:

      Oh and Russia’s 73rd out of 119 with the US rape rate being roughly 8 times higher… so I understand why Hunter’d Much rather live in the United States than in Russia…


  3. beadbud5000 says:

    Truths are operatives as opposed to absolutes. Like with learning, it works well to be open to malleability. It is how we grow individually and as a group or species. “Group Think” is the danger we are always at risk towards. Both points of the duality.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm a thought

    In terms of public school education it needs a remake in comparison to the 1960s 1970s.

  4. manbearpig says:

    oh…. so let me get this straight…

    “…the danger is when people critically accept, Uncritically accept the narratives they’re being handled uh handed by some authority “father knows best” figure
    or alternatively they uncritically accept the narrative that their own minds have generated,

    those are the conspiracy theorists…”

    (for god’s sake Don’t let your OWN minds generate their OWN narratives!!
    Ok…and the vast majority of the folks who were handed the official conspiracy theory by some authority “father knows best” figure like Bush or Chomsky or Ken or Barbie-style Fox news anchors,
    THEY are NOT conspiracy theorists then… of course….only those who create and uncritically accept their own narratives)

    “…so the real work then is basically, once you’ve got whatever narrative you’ve got, you then challenge and test that against all available data to see how well it holds up…”

    Yes, that’s what critical minds do. But…has Hunter Maats, the author of these words done this?

    In fact, to be perfectly honest, he wields the official narratives so deftly, inserting them into his rhetoric with such…deliberate and targeted ease and satisfaction, like a check-list…; the anti-Russian, anti-conspiracy theory, the anti man-made global warming skepticism memes…

    that I have to wonder if he has absolutely No critical thinking skills at all…

    or if he’s just profoundly ingenuous?

    … or something else?

    All a question of …. belief…

    if I refuse to look at or recognize your facts, well…

    then you have none…

    like institutionalized no nuclear weapons…

    like “nuclear ambiguity”…

    • manbearpig says:


      “… and the vast majority of the folks who were handed the official conspiracy theory by some authority “father knows best” figure…”

      should have read “and those who uncritically accept the Official conspiracy narrative that they were handed from an authority “father knows best” figure

      are not conspiracy theorists of course. Only those who uncritically accept the narratives that their OWN minds have generated…GASP!!”

      Anyhow, you get the idea… and as Chomsky would say, “Who cares?”…

      I should really get my snarky little self to bed now anyway…

      • manbearpig says:


        “or if he’s just profoundly ingenuous?”

        should be

        “or if he’s just profoundly DISingenuous?”

        Things’d be easier and a lot less time consuming if I could just do them right the first time…sigh…


  5. scpat says:

    Hunter is AGAINST indoctrination and FOR critical thinking, yet he demonstrates that he has been indoctrinated by statist mythology. He also demonstrates that he hasn’t properly applied his critical thinking skills to that, and other extremely important topics such as global warming. I can sympathize though, because not long ago I was in a very similiar boat.

    People form their views off of information they think they know, even if it’s misinformation. This drives home the point of thinking critically instead of appealing to authority. We can’t just listen to and accept everything that someone with a microphone says, whether that be Hunter or James Corbett. We have to somehow vet the information we are consuming. Most people don’t have time to do this, though. I think it comes down to a combination of vetting as much info as we can, but also doing enough research to know who the good mechanics (podcasters) are that know what they are talking about and can be trusted to be reliable.

  6. AnimalsArentFood says:

    I like Hunter’s detest for the current ‘education’ system.
    That’s pretty much it though.
    The guy just isn’t very bright or very open minded.
    Ironically, he’s a great deal like the typical graduate of our current ‘education’ system.
    University-degree-induced Dunning–Kruger.

  7. zyxzevn says:

    We are being schooled by “science” and “experts”

    Here I fully agree with James, when he states that we should
    be able to choose who or what we trust.
    If there are conflicts we can talk about it, and still
    respect each other’s choices. That is what the talkers do,
    but did not talk about.

    I have often conflicts with scientists, because I am logical
    and want science to be based on observations and experiments.

    Yes, this is in conflict with mainstream science!

    Astronomy the worst “exact” science ever

    As a good example of why you should not trust “experts”
    in the field.

    Astronomy is really, really bad, and a good example for this.

    The theories are often based on old observations, that were
    later revised. That means the observations, not the actual
    That is because “experts” always stick to the same old theories,
    unless they can absolutely not go on with it. And that never happens
    as we can never put a star in a laboratory.
    It is often similar to a religion, especially if they worked
    with the theories for a long time.

    In the model of the SUN, our nearest star, I can scientifically proof
    that there are 8 HUGE errors already. All false theories are
    based on observations that were later revised.

    Small list here:

    1 FAIL: Magnetic Reconnection REALITY: Bad Physics

    2 FAIL: Magnetohydrodynamics. REALITY: There are electric fields in plasma

    3 FAIL: Only Zeeman effect. REALITY: much is Stark effect.

    4 FAIL: Gaseous plasma Sun REALITY: Sun has condensed matter (fluid/solid)

    5 FAIL: Sun has no surface REALITY: The sun has a surface (fluid)

    6 FAIL: Sun breaks basic laws of thermodynamics REALITY: Sun temperature is very different

    7 FAIL: Sun’s corona has very low pressure REALITY: Pressure is much higher

    8 FAIL: No chemistry REALITY: Sun shows chemical reactions

    (section: The Sun)

    So every time you hear someone talk about black holes, dark matter or even the beginning of the universe, remember that these scientists are already completely wrong about our nearest star.
    Astronomy is mostly science fiction indeed.

    Other sciences

    And then we have sciences like archeology where we can
    talk a lot about lost civilizations that had some kind
    of advanced engineering, which we have not replicated yet.

    Or talk about biology, where the simplest organisms can
    make intelligent decisions, like the slime-mold.

    See: for these
    and other science-breaking observations.

    Update on Artificial intelligence
    I stated before that AI is not going to replace humans anytime.
    That is because computers can not solve the stopping problem.

    Other people (AI-specialists) now also came to a similar conclusion:

    • manbearpig says:

      Good grief! Looks mighty interesting! Wish I had time to look at this stuff!….

    • AnimalsArentFood says:

      Always nice to find another person who understands how absolutely absurd it is that the public is expected to believe as fact (or near fact) these absurdly weak theories about objects light years away, coming from astronomers & astrophysicists who can’t even figure our own solar systems without a constant stream blunders and quiet retractions.

    • zyxzevn says:

      Freefall of science

      Forgot to mention that mainstream science does not even
      acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for demolition of the
      3 towers with thermite.
      This is clear from the 10 characteristics of demolition:

      Besides that there is much more evidence. This is just the top
      of the iceberg.


      By accepting an institution, we also accept the corruption of that institution. And this goes in every way.

      The logical song

      • Fawlty Towers says:

        zyxzevn says:

        “Freefall of science

        Forgot to mention that mainstream science does not even
        acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for demolition of the
        3 towers with thermite.
        This is clear from the 10 characteristics of demolition:”

        Just a teaser zyxzevn, but prepare yourself to be very surprised on this “overwhelming evidence” in the coming weeks. I’m working on a piece I promised.

      • generalbottlewasher says:

        Generalbottlewasher says ” Im a thoroughly modern general knowledgeable of animal, vegetable and mineral!” thank you zyxzevn

  8. FIW says:

    Well, by saying this maybe I’ll just be “one of the people who are gorging popcorn and cheering on my team”, but it seems to me that what Hunter is advocating is just more of the same.

    So you say that if we don’t have a small group of people governing us then the individual might be doing things, like emitting greenhouse gasses, that will affect his/her sorroundings negatively. Well, what about the effect that a bad decision of the majority has, then, on the minority when the decisions and conclusions of the said majority are wrong? And mind you that this is often millions of people, some times nearly half of the people who voted, since a lot of decicions are made based upon a “majority” of 52-53%.

    This so called democracy is nothing but a dictatorship of the majority, a majority that is often mislead and some times even ignorant because they can’t be bothered. Why do I, and millions of others, have to do or not do certain things just because a degenerated smackhead managed to persuade 51.5% of the others that this is the way it has to be? I don’t have 200 years of life to outwait the system! Or for people to see sense, I live right now and if I’m lucky, or unlucky, depending on what direction this crazy world will take, I’ll only have 30-40 more years or so to live in.

    I’ve already wasted half of my life in this model and I’ve completely lost faith in it. And it doesn’t matter who we put in charge, as if we actually decide that, or how accountable we try to make them, as if they ever truly would be.
    The way I see it the only way forward is decentralization of power and free markets and competition and it doesn’t matter whether the competing factions are warlords, schools, scientists, car makers or currencies. The most important, I think, is that we don’t stop debating or researching and only a system in which each faction can do this freely, and actually get a chance to show the rest what it’s capable of, can guarantee that we arrive at a solution which is truly best for all and what is best for all is even depending on local circumstances. There is no universal solution for everyone, not even inside a nation, and a centralized power, or a monopoly, is always going to try to force their universal solution over the heads of as many as possible, we’ve seen this time and time again.

    What worries me most, the biggest flaw of our society as it is now, is what we’ve become. I once read a book about the civil war in ex Yugoslavia, and the author asked himself how it could be that after the atrocities of WWII we allowed it to happen once again. While struggling with this question he compared George Orwell, who started with reporting on the Spanish civil war, but ended up fighting on one of the sides, to us, the modern people of today. He reached the conclusion that Orwell’s generation had values, they were brought up to do something about it and to take responsibility of their lives while as we are brought up as spectators to our own life and refuse to truly take responsibility for it, therefore we dare not act.
    Okay maybe his conclusion is not 100% correct, maybe I got it wrong, but I remember thinking that it was spot on, brilliant. I’m not saying that we should go off and fight wars in other countries, but regarding the spectator part of it he was so right. And we are made into these spectators because of the power monopoly that we have allowed to be contructed around us, we’ve put our lives on autopilot sitting there in our own little driverless car, that our life has become, sucking on our thumbs while staring into our smartphone or tablets, i.e. whatever digital passifier of our choosing, perfectly content with choosing between variants of the same blue without even bothering to try to find out whether there’s another colour out there that would actually fit our needs better.

    • pearl says:

      Excellent comment, FIW. You expressed so very well what I struggle to put into words myself.

      Since it was me you quoted, I feel prompted to clarify myself, or rather expand my point. In both podcasts, I found Hunter Maats polarizing. Early on in each episode, he unnecessarily casts the first stone by ever so gently demeaning not only Corbett, but at least half his audience, preventing the host’s intent for the podcast, which I believe was to be an insightful dialogue on education, its pitfalls, and ideas toward solutions. Fortunately for us, Maats brought with him his assumptions (revealed by his contrasting himself with “conspiracy theorists”). The conversation about the problem of education was unable to move an inch. The tension was palpable. Sure, it was entertaining, and once again ”my team” (James) clearly showed himself to be more focused, less condescending, and just a better communicator. But I came away wondering why the host saw any benefit in pursuing a third episode, as if only more time was needed to work toward any kind of solution toward education. How on earth? Hunter Maats is insulting while attempting to sell us something, and he lost me on day one. No big deal, but the third title ought to reflect the real mood to anyone new to these discussions: Hunter Maats’ problem with us stubborn individuals. I’ll be there with my popcorn, because it’s fun, insightful, and wholly satisfying to see James, together with the commenters here, illumine this rude dude’s fallacies.

      • FIW says:

        Ah, well, it wasn’t personal that I quoted you, but I see what you mean now, that it was supposed to have been an interesting debate about our education system, or lack of it, but ended up being a sort of verbal wrestling match….and dare I say one between a true sportsman/gentleman and Hulk Hogan hehe

    • mkey says:

      You made some excellent points there and maybe I’m misreading/misunderstanding you, but how do you propose fragmentation of society would go around the rule of the majority issue? I’m presuming we’re on the same page here in saying that rule of the majority is not the central problem, but the rule of the uninformed majority. But even on the local level you’d need to have the support of the majority for your ideas to pass.

      I’m pretty sure the uninformed majority on the “global” level would transition nicely to the local level, albeit you’d have a better chance to influence some people on the local level and thus affect the majority than you’d have on “global” level.

      • FIW says:

        Oh, exchanging opinions with you has turned out to be an intellectual as well as linguistical challenge for me, stimulating though it is….I’ll see if my low broadband brain can live up to the challenge haha.

        Yes, we are on the same page regarding the rule of the majority not being the problem as such. The problem, the way I see it, is how we go about it.

        I think that the need to reach a conclusion to a problem and move on has always been essential to human kind and I guess that finding constellation in the idea that 60 out of 100 brains with the same idea must be right is only natural, but the problem is that, as you say, if the 60 ones of them are badly informed or, what if the 40 ones of them are simply smarter and have predicted something the other 60 haven’t. Then the rule of majority is not the way forward, but becomes false reinsurance and an excuse for failure, “but all the others wanted it too” kind of like in the school yard “it wasn’t me, I wasn’t alone”.

        This is what we have now. Our system is a useless, corrupt piece of …excrement that has been tweaked, hacked and manipulated more times than a bad copy of and already flawed windows version. I don’t need to go into details with how fruitless it is to participate in it nor with how well protected it is against real and true change, James has already done that on several occasions. But the thing is that the people behind all of this aren’t the only culprits, we ourselves are responsable for letting it happen and I think that part of this reason can be found in our built in false reassurance in that if most of the others say it’s true or right, then it must be. The people who built this system, or tweaked it, just used this vulnerability against us.

        Therefore I think that a way to improve this is to make sure that the debate, or whatever the issue is, never stops. The 60 people get to do it their way and the 40 their way, along the way they argue, they try to convince each other and others, they compete! Who ever has the best solution to it will automatically win as their solution will spread from a local level to a national level and from a national, perhaps even to a global one, if needed, because every region on earth has different needs and circumstances. What we have now kills any free thinking and initiative, they make us vote or they generate our consent and once their side has won, BOOM, the hammer falls and the opposition is eliminated, they rush on with their blietzkrieg style lawfare and before you know it whatever alternatives the others had are gone, the debate is dead, if there ever was one, and we move with what ever occupation therapy we have to do.

        What I’m wasting so much space in trying to say, I guess, is that the majority has to come in a natural way, I don’t know how to explain it, what we have now is generated majority made in a rush, in a media campaign, while as slowly convincing others and gaining support because your idea, your invention etc. is actually useful would generate it’s own rule of majority. But this takes participation, critical thinking and interest from everyone, people would have to actually study/research/read and find out what it’s all about and this is where we the people fail by buying into what ever occupation therapy the system throws our way. It also takes for any monopoly to be completely broken in order to allow people to move ahead freely.

        A majority generated through spontaneous order out of what is acutally needed, damn, still struggling to explain myself. What is obstructing this is, yes, an uninformed crowd, but just as much the same uninformed crowd’s indefference to what is happening, how their world and stuff work and their voluntarily accepting the “ethnic cleansing” of their birth given curiousity and creativity.

        • mkey says:

          Yes, but which idea is the “right” one? If 60 out of 100 have the same idea, that may make it “right” with higher probability but by no means is it be to considered “not right” (i.e. incorrect) because it’s in conflict what the rest of the 100 think about it. It could be argued that often times doing the right thing is not very prudent at all.

          Otherwise I agree with your points, the systems in place are completely contrary to natural order, suffocation progress and disincentivizing people from doing pretty much anything when it comes to improving their living conditions. Their occupation therapies and exploitation of some natural reflexes, like laziness, help us along in doing nothing.

  9. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I couldn’t help but to be dumb-struck about the statements concerning the FDA and other ‘protective’ government agencies.

    Yeah…we need the CDC to let African Americans spread syphilis, and then destroy their health with bogus pharmaceuticals.
    Fortunately, the head of the CDC (Gerberdine) got a job at Merck making millions.
    Yes, my kind of protective government agincies. We must protect these corporations who have only the health and welfare of citizens at heart.

    Yeah…I am glad that the head of the EPA (see Corbett Report on Christine Todd Whitman) helped to kill and disease many of these damn Yankee New Yorkers after 9/11.
    And the EPA suppresses their own scientist researchers about Fluoride causing cancer…how else can we keep the cancer industry prospering?
    I am so glad that the EPA was in bed with Monsanto, because Monsanto needs to be protected.

    And I am so glad the FDA burned the Stevia Cookbooks in the Dallas area during the 1990’s. Those cookbooks should be illegal.

    The solution for a better America is more government agencies.

    • mkey says:

      Well, I’d care to disagree with you on the matter of efficiency of government agencies.

      There’s a total of some 180 (the best figure I could find dating back to 2012, this is all very hush hush) agencies in my failed state with almost 10% of population employed in various government held positions, drawing their paychecks directly from the state budget. Result of all that fine stately work is that these European countries (like Check, Slovakia, Romania even Hungary) which a few decades ago were leagues behind us are now cruising along well past us.

  10. manbearpig says:

    “…I can tell you firsthand that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are terrible ambassadors for science. You can read about that here.

    They epitomize the arrogance and smug condescension that is the worst of any tribe.

    As someone who doesn’t have a Professorship to protect, I have the economic freedom to call them out in front of the whole world…

    …Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins will tell you that they are skeptics.

    However, they are skeptics in the same way that conspiracy theorists are. They trust no one but have unlimited faith in their own powers of reason…

    …Science is an approach to bringing our beliefs in conflict with evidence. It’s about being skeptical not just about other people’s beliefs but most especially about our own beliefs. And it’s pretty much impossible to do that when you stay within your own tribe…

    …And yet, why does Sam Harris not talk about his own failings?…

    …Because Sam Harris for all his talk of meditation and Eastern philosophy is more interested in the speck in his brother’s eye than the log in his own…

    …No one is willing to call him out. And yet, I think that’s what really loving your neighbor as yourself requires. It requires calling each other out. It requires humanity taking turns at picking the splinters out of each other’s eyes so we can all see more clearly…”

    -Hunter Maats

    Now just for an “exercice de style” and a new amazing perspective try replacing the name “Sam Harris” in Hunter Maats’ text with “Hunter Maats”…

    Dear Hunter Maats,

    You must suffer from severe ocular pain. In an effort to remove the log from your eye

    why don’t you begin by defining exactly what you mean by the term

    “Conspiracy Theorist”.

    Then we’ll try to work out why you feel the need to use the term so often. Perhaps something to do with the following phenomenon you yourself described?:

    “The human tendency to believe that we are the good guys and other people are the bad guys is the defining problem of human history. And it’s a problem that arises because our brains can’t track more than about 150 individuals. This is known as The Dunbar Number….And so, almost everyone else on the planet we judge through stereotypes. You can like that. You can dislike that. And yet, that’s the reality of human affairs. The key is how do we manage that…”

    So how are you gonna manage that derogatory tribal stereotyping yourself?

    • manbearpig says:

      Ooops! My bad! Maats’ BS hit piece was, according to its author, just a manipulative ploy in the interest of promoting…”Intellectual Terrorism”??!

      From reddit:

      “Hey all! This is Hunter here. Happy to answer any and all questions you might have. My goal was to deliberately create social conflict as a way to draw people into a lot of science that simply hasn’t diffused.”
      -Hunter Maats

      which prompted the following reply by someone whose name has been deleted:

      “”…My goal was to deliberately create social conflict as a way to draw people into a lot of science that simply hasn’t diffused.”
      So in other words, trolling. Great job, Ambassador from Science! I’ll pass.”

      with Maats responding thusly:

      “I’ve never claimed to be an ambassador for science. My goal is to diffuse Innovations out of the ivory tower and break down those barriers. More on that:
      Thanks so much for taking the time to read!”


      “Well, as a scientist, I believe we should respond to the evidence. We’ve been trying to diffuse evolution for 150 years. Dawkins and Harris have been trying their approach for well over a decade. None of what they’re doing fits with the scientific evidence (The Diffusion of Innovations) or made my job easier.”

      And from Maats’ article linked in his comment above:

      “My first attempts at a Bully Pulpit have taught me that that strategy works. I’ve used it to get people’s attention and then engage them in conversation and shift their minds on the issues…”

      You mean by attacking conspiracy theorists for example?

      “…When you create social drama, you grab people’s attention. People rush in to find out what it’s all about. And that’s when you can teach them. The problem is that if you’re always creating drama you become boring and predictable and so you have to switch up the story. You have to switch roles and show yourself to be good-natured. You make fun of yourself. That switches the story again.”

      Soooo, once you’ve “intellectually terrorized” someone and “broken down those barriers”, what exactly do you teach them?

      “…Blaming and insulting something like religion or the government or white men is a much, much easier sell than a message of personal responsibility, dealing with your own emotions, empathy for others, constant learning and constantly admitting when you screwed up. I’m trying to sell beliefs that work…and the problem is that very often they aren’t the easiest sell…”

      “…I’m trying to sell beliefs that work…”

      Reminds me of Tom Cruise’s Self-Help guru character in the movie “Magnolia”…

      Dunno, but Mr Maats, by his own description, sounds like a professional propaganda artist to me… Cambridge, Massachusetts has an uncanny gift for spawning them…

      • pearl says:

        Amazing finds, ManBearPig.

        Maats says, “…When you create social drama, you grab people’s attention. People rush in to find out what it’s all about. And that’s when you can teach them. The problem is that if you’re always creating drama you become boring and predictable and so you have to switch up the story. You have to switch roles and show yourself to be good-natured. You make fun of yourself. That switches the story again.”

        Or, you could just be genuine and if the message or product is sound, it’ll sell itself by word of mouth. A shame for him, because I was *this* close to checking out his book, but then…

        • manbearpig says:

          I haven’t spent enough time (as I have with Chomsky) looking into Maats and what he has to sell to have profound convictions so

          By all means, check out his book! Whether or not you decide it’s worth much after that, well… you’re still that much wiser about the world, sophistry and human nature…maybe your own!

          And You once again prodigiously eeked out the essence of my preoccupations formulating them into a single word:


          Sincerity is capital. Sincerity is precisely why I’ve never been disappointed by Mr Corbett. I may not agree with him on every point but

          I know he’s sincere so he helps me move forward.

          As for the success of a message or product if it is sound


          it’s not guaranteed. 9/11 CLEARLY was NOT what it is officially portrayed to be, yet, a very significant portion of the population wants NOTHING to do with that message.

          And I was wondering if that was what the Chomskys and Maatses of the world “know”, allowing them to behave so cynically…

          That humanity can not handle the truth. About itself. And wants, even needs to be “handled” … but at the expense of our Humanity…

          There’s more but it’s taking form in my mind at the moment…

          and this time I REALLY AM EXTREMELY LATE FOR HAMSTERING!!!!!

          Be Happy Today!

          • pearl says:

            It was so nice to read your encouraging response this morning. Rushing to and fro, I’m finally back home and able to thank you properly. I’ve got two home school fledglings starting college this week. Naturally, it’s an exciting time for all of us, and I’m really hoping they’ll encounter a teacher like you along their way.

            Speaking of sophistry, you reminded me of Jeff DeRiso (who was a contributor at Newsbud for about 5 minutes…gee, I wonder why?) who has a video series on that very thing. At the time, I was interested to delve into that, but allowed myself to get distracted by other things. So, being a ninja-in-training and for the purpose of sharpening my own critical thinking, I think my energies would be better spent with him.

            Lastly, you wrapped up your intriguing thoughts with “There’s more but it’s taking form in my mind at the moment…” Don’t keep us hanging too long! 🙂

            • manbearpig says:

              Really, sincerely Pearl,

              Hat’s off to you for all you’ve done for your kids

              and for all the good vibes you always try to spread.

              And thanks for the DeRiso link! I loved Mindhack!

              I’m in no position to judge, but I’d say “Watch out World”,

              There’s one formidable Ninja about to shake you up!

              For the Better!!!

              PS: I’ve just invented a fabulous Pineapple/cocout cream samoussa recipe that can be adapted for pies that is immensely therapeutic! Even my son who rejects any and all forms of vitamines loves it!

              • pearl says:

                Amazing! Criss-cross! I just responded over on the lemming thread!

                Having a weakness for desserts and the power of suggestion, I’m experiencing a sudden craving for Pineapple cream samoussa, and I’ve never even heard of it.

  11. mkey says:

    This interview holds the first place in facepalm moments out of all the videos done by James which I have seen. Well, maybe it’s second only to the Newsbud quadruple fact checking response video.

    I usually like the ripple effect podcast, but Hunter is soooo hard to process. But what can you do, he’s people and disliking someone just because you don’t agree with 90% of everything he lays out isn’t very PC, is it?

    I wonder if he does really consider himself to be a critical thinker, what with all the tropes he keeps flinging around: conspiracy theorists, global warming (ahem, Hunter you may have not gotten the memo, but “global warming” didn’t quite fit the bill because it was completely out of sync with reality so they rebranded it to “climate change” which is at least factually correct as far as the naming scheme is considered since climate changes constantly, no way to spin that), rule of the minority, government agencies, government monopoly on violence… did I miss any?

  12. danmanultra says:

    Tough one to finish, but I did it anyways cause its better to listen to views you disagree with a be intellectually honest. Maats…. wow. Its like he knows better and still refuses to see the truth of things. When I was still asleep it was genuinely because I was ignorant of how evil the government and how ruthless its history was. Once I gained that knowledge I could no longer see the world the same again. This guy though… I just know for myself I will aim higher than “less rapey”. What a low bar.

  13. scpat says:

    Denis Rancourt – The Agenda With Steve Paikin
    April 15, 2009

    (Queued video):

    This physics professor explains how the current, mainstream education system produces graduates who are not critical thinkers and who are trained to obey authority. This is not a bug, but a feature of the education system. Train children to be compliant, non-critical thinkers, who are obedient to authority.

    • mkey says:

      The news guys was kind of like a wet bag of mashed potatoes in the end. “Well, yeah, why don’t you just provide us with updates on your issue”. That’s not his issue, buddy. This is all over the place, the elephant in the room people are too stupid to see for what it is.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top