Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Arete Leading to Eudamonia

Those are concepts from the ancient Greeks. Arete means excellence and eudamonia means flourishing or well-being. Excellence leads to well-being. This has been noticed for thousands of years.

Or, as Charles Murray wrote in Human Accomplishment, "Exercising our realized capacities is, in the truest sense of the word, enjoyable.

I should also point out that the word "education" means "to draw out." That is, draw out what talents are already there. Our inborn capacities, which we then should develop to obtain our greatest flourishing and well-being.

To quote Murray again: "The things we enjoy most deeply are the things at which we are most expert."

Sometimes people show that talent at five years old. One of my old girlfriends told me when she was five years old she shinnied up a lamppost and straddled the top, waving to cars. When she grew up she innately had almost professional athletic talent. She used to beat the hell out of me at anything we did. I never won at miniature golf, for an example.

Let's try Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics: "Life is an activity, and each man exercises his favorite facilities upon the objects he loves most."

That leads us to the question of how the West became so rich. One of the main answers: Christianity. And a lot of that had to do with St. Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas wrote that human intelligence is a gift from God, and to apply human intelligence to understanding the world is pleasing to God. In other words, using all of your talents is a great thing - especially if you have a good time doing it.

This spirit of free inquiry is how the West developed science and technology and why we have such wealth that we are the envy of the world (and because of their envy is why so much of the Third World wants to bring us down).

Religions that have gone nowhere are the ones that prohibit inquiry and think the purpose of life is to avoid damnation, which generally involves sending money to frauds.

To quote Aristotle again: "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."

In other words - excellence. What used to be called "the good, the true and the beautiful."

I'll end again with a quote from Murray: "Human beings have been most magnificently productive and reached their highest cultural peaks in the times and places where humans have thought most deeply about their place in the universe and are convinced they have one."

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

"The Schizophrenic Left, the Confused Cuckservatives, and the Path to American Greatness"

This was written by Gregory Hood and is from American Renaissance.

Only we can contribute to a debate that baffles both Right and Left.

The Left is having a messaging problem. Presumptive Republican nominee Donald J. Trump has a simple slogan: Make America Great Again. But the Left can’t decide whether contemporary America is the fulfillment of all their hopes or a bastion of racism, sexism and transphobia.

A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton introduced her response to Donald Trump’s iconic red #MAGA hat: a blue hat with the slogan “America Is Already Great,” now available for sale at the official Democratic Party website. Mrs. Clinton has also been hammering away at the implicit message of national redemption Trump represents, claiming that “despite what you hear, we don’t need to make America great again. America has never stopped being great.”

But not everyone in the great Democratic Coalition of the Oppressed agrees. Krystal Lake, a black employee at Home Depot and avowed Sanders supporter, started wearing a hat to work saying “America Was Never Great.” She is getting death threats (something every open white advocate is already familiar with) as well as adoring media coverage (something we never experience). Papermag has declared Miss Lake their “hero” and she may have set herself up for a career in her field of “music, radio, social media or journalism.”

Still, the divide is a problem for the Left. After all, Barack Obama is the President of these states united, and telling everyone the country is an embarrassing disaster is hardly a winning message. Hillary Clinton can’t exactly run against the man she served as secretary of state. If America isn’t “great” now, why would another Democrat make it any better?

There’s a deeper issue. The Democratic Party depends on the anti-white fury generated by leftist identity politics to keep its disparate coalition together. However, a fundamental premise of the anti-white world view is that the United States, as a creation of European-Americans, is fundamentally oppressive. Its history, according to this view, is defined by white supremacy, racism, imperialism and the exploitation of “black bodies.” At Home Depot, “America Was Never Great” might raise eyebrows, but it’s the conventional wisdom at almost every American university.

Having fueled anti-American and anti-white rage for their own purposes, leftists have a hard time keeping their minority mascots on script when the cameras come out. For example, when Mexicans in the Southwest protest Donald Trump, they do so in the name of their own raza and fatherland, openly declaring their intention is to “Make America Brown Again” or “Make America Mexico Again.” The slogans are even on hats. Such inconvenient candor is a problem for a Democratic Party that needs to convince at least some patriotic Americans to support Hillary.

A columnist at The Root tried to square the circle by saying that while America has never been great, it’s “greater now than it ever has been.”

Damon Young, a contributing editor at Ebony and editor-in-chief of something called “VerySmartBrothas.com” writes:

There’s never been a time when the country was more closely aligned with the ambitions of its creation. When our government was better positioned to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of each of its citizens and not just straight, Christian men without much melanin.

Of course, you don’t have to be a “very smart brotha” but just an average white man to see the problem with this. The “ambitions of its creation” were set by the Founding Fathers, all of whom would be called “white supremacists” by today’s standards.

As Jared Taylor wrote in “What the Founders Really Thought About Race“:

Since early colonial times, and until just a few decades ago, virtually all whites believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races had different temperaments and abilities, and built markedly different societies. They believed that only people of European stock could maintain a society in which they would wish to live, and they strongly opposed miscegenation. For more than 300 years, therefore, American policy reflected a consensus on race that was the very opposite of what prevails today.

The best leftists can do is to promote a false view of American history in search of a “usable past.” In order to do so, they must direct the egalitarian ideals of the founding towards ends that would have shocked the Founders. And certain figures will either be retroactively co-opted as honorary non-whites (as in the Hamilton musical) or plucked from the margins of the American story and put in the center (as with Harriet Tubman).

Yet the racial truth of America cannot be denied. The Constitution was written by white men. The country’s institutions were built by white men. The territory was settled by white men, its wealth generated by white men, its victories won by white men, its glories from the skyline of New York to the conquest of the moon achieved by white men. In any honest history of America, non-whites are irrelevant, enemies, or details. Until the last white person is eliminated from America, there will always be, as Barack Obama likes to say, “so much more work to do” when it comes to divorcing the story of America from its founding stock. But as the white majority disappears, the high standard of living, reasonably efficient administration, and economic and military power produced by that population will disappear too.

Contra Ta-Nehisi Coates and silly myths of “white privilege,” European-Americans do not benefit from the presence of other races. Much of American history, and certainly the bulk of American life, is about the struggle to secure enough resources to live away from them. The big lie of American race relations is that we need minorities. We don’t need them and would be much better off on our own. They are the ones who need us; many of them need us very badly.

The work of white dispossession can continue only if most European-Americans continue to cooperate. We have to be convinced that America itself is still somehow the same country even as the population is utterly transformed. European-Americans must also be convinced that it is their resistance to dispossession that endangers the Republic, not the endless power grabs of the anti-white Left. And those self-described conservatives who further this mission of betraying the cause of their people are the ones we call “cuckservatives.”

One specimen of this breed recently emerged at RealClearPolitics. Mark Salter is former chief of staff for John McCain, and like his former boss, has criticized his party’s presumptive nominee. Dismayed by the harshness with which he was, in turn, criticized, he is nostalgic for an earlier time when political disagreement could be gentle and respectful. Mr. Salter wrote:

"My grandfather was a staunch Republican. His closest friend for 30 years was a loyal Democrat. They never once voted for the same presidential candidate . . .

"They recognized the same local, national and international problems, and I doubt they disagreed too often about the best approaches to solving those problems. Although they preferred the leadership of politicians in opposing parties, they believed that problem-solving in a free society was an all-hands-on-deck business. That’s what patriotism meant to them, every citizen contributing to making the country better.

"The notion that one party should get to decide everything would have been strange to them. The idea that you wouldn’t have friendships or meaningful relationships with people whose politics differed from yours would have struck them as ridiculous."

Needless to say, Mr. Salter cannot bring himself to understand that the the spirit of all hands on deck has been crushed to death by the very America he is helping to bring about. His earlier, idyllic America was 90 percent white. As Mr. Salter admits: “Although their friendships weren’t confined to one socio-economic class, neither my grandfather nor his friend would have had relationships on an equal footing with African-Americans or Latinos. I can’t remember ever meeting a Jewish friend of my grandfather’s.” What he wants is an egalitarian, patriotic America with high social trust and a sense of a common good. Plus racial diversity.

That’s impossible. As we know, diversity destroys social capital. Desegregation ruined community institutions such as parks, pools, and public schools. Mr. Salter laments that:

We’ve come to define ourselves more than ever by our politics. We segregate ourselves socially by politics. We get our news about politics from partisans. We’re entertained by the like-minded. We’re developing our own vocabularies. Americans with opposite political views are not just becoming more antagonistic to each other. We’re becoming strangers to each other.

This should be no surprise. As the late Lee Kwan Yew said: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

American politics are becoming more polarized because they are becoming racialized. In the 2014 election, despite the GOP’s best efforts, the Republicans moved closer than ever to becoming the “white” party, or to what Peter Brimelow calls the “Generic American Party.” Meanwhile, the Democrats are relying on ever more outlandish anti-white posturing to hold their disparate coalition together.

Media bias is not blinding us to some common interest. “Americans”–whatever that term even means now–have no common interest. And as the government of the United States increasingly becomes a vast machine for transferring the wealth of whites to non-whites, patriotic sentiment for European-Americans becomes yet another expression of pathological altruism.

Both cuckservatives and Democrats make the same mistake. They think what is good about America–however they define it–can be preserved without the people who made it possible. Those who claim “America Was Never Great” still benefit from a standard of living created by the productivity and charity of whites on whom they depend even as they rage against them. More moderate Democrats believe they can convince white Americans to support them despite the anti-white rage the party promotes. And cuckservatives continue to delude themselves that a Third World America will have any use for them.

Only racially aware whites have anything to contribute to this debate. They know that America was great because of the core European-American population that created its institutions. They know that it can be great again if whites reclaim their leadership and again become the overwhelming majority. Otherwise, everything that made America great will vanish with the people who created it. It’s not about the color of your hat or even the color of your skin. It’s about the far deeper heritage and power we share as sons and daughters of Europe who, if we will it, can Make America Great Again.

Leftism is About Murdering the Father

Erik von Kuenelt-Leddihn, who wrote the must-have book, Leftism Revisited, claimed that leftism is about the "murder of the Father." That's "father" with a capital F, as in the archetypal Father.

And when you murder the Father, what is left? The Mother, specfically the Bad Mother. Mythologically, the Terrible Mother. You know - feminism.

All this nonsense about going into whatever bathroom you want? Would this even be under consideration if women weren't allowed to vote? If Obama wasn't a homosexual?

Feminism is leftist, and therefore about destroying the Father. And since the Father created everything in the world, including civilization, leftism is about destroying civilization.

The archetypal Father is a protector and provider. That is why He created civilization. Of course, these days, those things are being taken away from Him, and everyone is paying for it. (Affirmative Action, for an example, means "White Men Need Not Apply)".

"Our first work must be the annihilation of everything as it now exists," wrote Mikhail Bakunin.

Why? Because leftists consider people to be children, ones with plastic personalities that can be molded like Play Doh. And if you just kill enough people, as Bakunin suggested, then a brand-new society will pop up.

This leftist Utopia will never happen, although leftists never learn.

Leftism is inherently narcissistic. Everything is either all-good or all-bad. This is why leftists consider those who disagree with them not merely mistaken but evil. And being evil it's okay to kill them, since once they're gone only the good will be left.

This is why leftists always blame their problems on other people, and why so many woman blame their problems on men ("It's someone else's fault, not mine!").

Leftism is based on envy and hate (as is narcissism) so leftism is a mental illness.

Kuenelt-Leddihn wrote that sooner or later the right has to "knock the heads of the Left." That means "terminate with extreme prejudice." It's been the history of the world.

Personally I'm not looking forward to this.

But it is what invariably happens when the Father (patriarchy) is overthrown.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Women as Reproductive Bottlenecks

My neighbor across the street breeds bulldogs, and the female recently gave birth to six puppies. The father had been dead five years, but his sperm had been frozen. God knows how many puppies he's fathered.

That got me thinking about women as reproductive bottlenecks. A woman can perhaps have 15 babies in her life (my father's mother had nine), but a man can impregnate thousands of women.

I don't consider this bottleneck a good thing. For one thing, r-selected retards can outbreed us K-selected smartyguys.

Society got around this in the past by killing the more criminal r-selected (yay for one less Michael Brown!) and also parents had a say to whom their kids married, to make sure they didn't end up with male or female Michael Browns.

No matter, that bottleneck has caused horrendous problems. Let's put it this way: great men such as Adam Smith and Isaac Newton never reproduced. But as for the retarded (think Idiocracy), the world is being flooded with them.

I used to read a lot of science fiction in my early teens, not because it made me imaginative, but because I was imaginative and thus drawn to it. But I remember reading Brave New World and the babies in test tubes (try the TV series, Space: Above and Beyond for vat-grown babies).

Right now human sperm and eggs are being frozen, and then sometimes implanted in surrogate mothers.

It's a way beyond that bottleneck.

What's next? Artificial wombs? It's coming. You know it is.

What will this do to the value of women? Their value sexually is close to zero, at least for men who can get women. If men can get designer babies grown in artificial wombs, with the eggs of whatever woman they choose (and I'm sure those special eggs would cost a lot of money), then who needs the average woman?

Sex cheap, the bottleneck bypassed, making women's reproductive value cheap...the only thing left that makes women worthwhile is love. And what is to be done with that?

Brave New World, indeed.

"We're Germs, Kid. We're Going to Kill You."

One of my friends and I occasionally discuss our perceptions this is not the same country we grew up in. And it's not like we're old fogies; we're not old, or fogies, whatever a fogie is. But it doesn't seem to be that much fun for kids today, compared to when we were out wreaking havoc.

We don't see the kids doing the things we used to do -- dirtclod or snowball fights, King-of-the-Hill, wrestling with each other, racing downhill on bikes as fast as possible. Or riding our bikes ten miles from home without telling anyone. A lot of kids today appear to be inside, addicted to video games (I know a kid who gets on his tablet as soon as he gets up). That's not such a good thing.

Most of the things we did as kids were risky, but risk had a lot to do with making it fun. It was a controlled (and at that age, a mostly mild) risk, but it was still a risk.

Here's an example: when I was a kid, there were no such things as bike helmets. Do I see helmets as a bad thing? Mostly I don't, but in some ways, I do. I've never known a kid to hurt his brains by not wearing a helmet. I'm sure it's happened, very rarely, but is it worth it when you can't get on your bike without worrying, "I have to put my helmet on so I'll be a vanishing fraction safer"?

Here's another, more interesting example from when I wasn't a kid, but about 21: my car starting spinning on the highway after I hit an unseen patch of black ice hidden by the night. I spun around, went off the road and rolled a few times, and came to rest with the car on its side. I remember the motor was still running and the headlights still on. I wasn't afraid the entire time, even though I could have gotten killed, just in a state of disbelief.

In that state everything dropped into slow-motion, and my perception grew very acute. After the car was lying on its side, I opened the door like a tank hatch, got out, and went "Woo hoo!" Everything was very bright and clear and intense. In a way, it was one of the most fun things that ever happened to me. The thrill was beyond description, and from that accident I learned why guys jump out of airplanes and engage in other extreme risk taking. It's some of the most fun play there is.

Is life supposed to be about being safe and bored all the time? Always feeling anxious and thinking, well, I'd better worry about doing this irrelevant thing, or that meaningless thing, so I'll be just a teeny-tiny bit safer? As compared to never giving it a thought? Which is more fun? Thinking the whole world is out to get you, or thinking it's a place where you can have a lot of fun?

I still drive all the time, and never worry about getting into an accident.

The problem, really, is thinking the whole world is an unsafe place, out to get you. I am reminded of cartoonist Gahan Wilson's Nuts book about young kids. One of the cartoons in particular sticks in my mind: a little boy, in bed with the sheets pulled up below his chin and a look of terror on his face. Why? Because many little oozy monsters are crawling up his sheets, grinning as they tell him, "We're germs, kid. We're going to kill you."

When I was a teenager we rode horses and mini-bikes, swam in lakes, sailed our goofy Sea Snark styrofoam sailboat, jumped off of cliffs into rivers. Nothing bad happened, no one drowned, or even came close. The most unusual thing we did is inflate one of those inner-tubes off of an 18-wheeler, then six or seven of us would stand on it in the middle of the lake and rock it back and forth until it upended. Only once was I was on the low end, and had every one fall on top of me. I remember I was so far down under the surface people were kicking me in the head. When I surfaced, everyone had concerned looks on their faces, because it took so long for me to come up. But I wasn't in danger, even that far down.

Not once as a teenager do I remember thinking, "Maybe I shouldn't swim in this lake. . .I could drown. . .maybe I shouldn't ride this mini-bike. . .I could fall off and cut my knee." The latter I did do; even today I have a three-stitch scar on my left knee. So what? Scars are permanent souvenirs.

What would life be like if all the fun and excitement and risk and adventure was sucked right out of it, in the name of safety? Would it be worth living, if the ability to play was eradicated? And doesn't play always involve some risk? All animals play, not only when young but when adult. In their case, it always involves teeth and claws. Would they ever stop playing because of the possibility of a scratch? You already know the answer: no.

One image I often have is that I'm looking at an attempt to return us to the womb. That's even more regressive than being a swaddled baby in a crib. There is no fun or adventure or excitement or risk in the womb. There's also no intelligence either. It sounds like an attempt to return us to the Garden of Eden, and contrary to the conventional wisdom, I would find it a heck of a boring place.

Here's what I wonder: is the desire for play and excitement and adventure in any way related to intelligence, the desire to learn, the desire to explore, to invent? Are they the natural outcomes of freedom and liberty? Seems so to me. And if you take away risk and fun and adventure, what happens to those good qualities of exploration and innovation? I think they go away, for the most part. After, hasn't it been the free countries that have produced just about everything in the world?

Who's behind this attempt to make the world out of Nerf? Politically, it's liberals. But what's liberalism? Isn't it just Mommy by another name? And don't Mommies want to make the world all safe 'n' snug, even though they don't understand they're taking all the fun out of everything? And maybe removing our brains, too?

It's not Daddies who're trying to rid the world of BB guns, and attempting to put little boys on Ritalin because they're acting like little boys and not little girls. It's Mommies who are trying this. And, to his everlasting shame, Daddies are letting Mommies do this.

Fred Reed has the perfect comment about this kind of Mommy: "censorious, moralizing, self-pitying, endlessly instructive, and so achingly tedious that men find themselves thinking of moldy bath sponges."

Maybe those boys on Ritalin just need to go outside and have some rough-and-tumble play for a few hours instead of being forced to sit motionless at desks, which little girls can do far more easily than little boys.

Another image I have is that of Star Trek's the Borg. The components of the Borg are completely safe womb-to-tomb, always taken care of -- and they have no excitement, no adventure, no fun, and no consciousness or intelligence. And it's completely in character that the Borg Cube (which is just a huge womb flying through space) is ruled by a Queen, one who is motherly and concerned for the welfare of her little worker drones. To me, her most frightening and eye-opening saying was when she commented: "Why do you resist us? We only wish to improve the quality of your lives."

The welfare state is Mommy. And the bigger her welfare state, the more play will decline and with it our intelligence, and along with it will go innovation, and fun, and excitement, and adventure. What a life, if you can call it a life. People will go from playing chess to checkers, then finally have problems with "Go Fish."

Does play, even if it involves risk, actually stimulate our brains? Does it serve a deeper, more profound function than simple recreation? Is it necessary throughout our lives, especially as a baby and a teenager? Are all societies damaged when Mommy takes over, because our brains go plop right out of our heads? Myself, I think so.

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Meaningless High School

When I was in high school my life consisted mainly of four things: high school, family, partying, and science-fiction. The first two were close to meaningless, and the last two meant a lot. In fact, they were pretty much the focus of my high school life.

It took me years to figure out what the answer was to that puzzle of why the first two meant so little and the last two so much. I didn't have a bad family life. It was just that, like a lot of kids then and now, family just didn't mean that much (I'm sure I would have realized just how much it meant if I didn't have it). Finally, I realized the answer was pretty simple: it had to do with meaning. The first two had little meaning to me; the last two a great deal. Everything has to have meaning, or it's not really worth doing or having.

For the last few decades there has been a lot of controversy among many people about the break-up of families. They have a point, and it's an important one. But when families are intact, there is something else little noticed but very important. As Ortega y Gassett has written, "People do not live together merely to be together. They live together to do something together."

Because of the way American life has evolved (in large part due to the interference of the State), there was no place for most teenagers when I was growing up, in society or the family. It's no different today. Teenagers have been marginalized for a long time, including in the family, even if it's not purposely done. Lots of teenager's lives don't have much purpose or meaning, even in their families. There is no true sense of community. That, I realized, was one of the main problems.

Several years ago I was in Memphis, sitting in a mall on a Friday night with a woman I know, waiting for a movie to start. I watched the same kids circle the mall, widdershins. That's all they were doing. I especially remember two girls, dressed like Goths, who I saw four times as they circled, before we left for the movie. That was the meaning and purpose of a lot of their life for these teenage girls. Walking in circles around the mall on a Friday night.

Not long after being in Memphis I was in Chicago, in another mall on Saturday morning. I saw the same behavior among teenagers I saw in Memphis.

It wasn't always like what I saw. The only book by Laura Ingalls Wilder I've read is Farmer Boy, her biography of the life of her husband, Almanzo Wilder, when he was ten years old and growing up on a farm. I was surprised by his life, which wasn't all that long ago -- in the 1860's.

Almanzo had a place and a purpose in the family, and an important one. The functioning of the farm was very much dependent on him, and Almanzo didn't mind at all. He enjoyed it a great deal. How many teenagers today can say the same? How many today just live with their families, but don't truly feel part of them? As for school -- ugh.

There was something very interesting about Almanzo's life. He hated school passionately and apparently only attended a few months at the most in his entire life. Yet he grew up intelligent and well-read.

He also remembered nearly everything that happened to him when he was young. I remember little, mostly because I spent most of my time in school, and it was the same meaningless thing day after day. I couldn't tell one day from the other. I have few memories from in-between the ages of seven and 10. I'm not the only one.

So, school, too, is a major part of the problem with teenagers today. Many have little purpose or meaning in their families, and even less in school. Unfortunately, to borrow a phrase from John Taylor Gatto, the purpose of government factory schools is indoctrination. That's why it puzzled me at first why family and school didn't mean that much to me. I especially had no place, or meaning, or purpose, in school. Indoctrination is not education, and it's always boring and never has any meaning.

Almanzo had an important place in the family, but no place in school. That's why he hated it. School meant nothing to him, and it bored him. It isn't any different today.

When I was in high school, we formed our own little communities. The same thing happens today. We called them "cliques" back then. To a degree I found it amusing even at the time. For one thing, in the one I belonged to, we all dressed exactly the same, from head to feet. It was the uniform for our community. More than anything else, what I remember from high school is the group I belonged to, and how we dressed.

The only acceptable shoes were Hush Puppies (I don't even know if they exist these days). Dark socks. White sweat socks? Ack! "Greasers" wore them. I didn't even know what a greaser was. None of us did.

Pants? Blue jeans as long as they were Levi's. They had to have the welt down the outside, and be flares, which were sort of a modified bell-bottom. Shirts? I remember flannel shirts were okay in the winter, as long as they were worn with a blue pea coat. No button-up shirts with short sleeves. Pure Nerdsville. No hats were acceptable, either. Long hair was an imperative. Mine was down in-between my shoulder blades.

Sound silly? Not really. It was the uniform of our community. It was part of the ritual. And without ritual, community, meaning and importance, you'll get not much more than alienation.

As for the purpose and meaning of my group, there was exactly one: partying on the weekends. And I'll tell you what: I had a great time. I belonged to a true community, and all of us had a meaning and purpose. It was nothing that could last for life -- partying never does -- but for those few years, it was wonderful. When I told one of my friends stories of my teenage years he admitted years later he was envious of me, because his high-school years consisted of him and his best friend sitting in the basement eating popcorn and watching TV. While I was on an island with 500 people, partying around a bonfire.

The science-fiction, I knew even at the time, gave me what is commonly called "a sense of wonder." I traveled from one end of the universe to the other, from the beginning of time to the end. It was amazing stuff -- meaningful stuff, to me -- and to this day I still read it. Even in junior high and high school I knew it was a reaction against the boredom of both. I just drifted away in my imagination, which at the time was more vivid than life.

When the Harry Potter books came out and I saw they were so popular that kids dressed like him, I understood why. Harry also had no place in his family. It wasn't even his real family. He was an outsider, an outcast, a scapegoat. I think that's one of the reasons for the popularity of the books, because even many small kids realize they don't have any true place or meaning in their families. It wasn't until Harry went away to Hogwarts that he was given a place in his new family, and a meaning -- in his case, a very important meaning.

Is it any wonder those books are so popular?

I've come to the conclusion there is no hope for the public schools. They bore kids, they destroy their imaginations, they give them no meaning or purpose. I'd shut them down on the spot if I could. How many kids like school? Almost none. Doesn't that tell people something?

I was recently walking somewhere in the morning and encountered an eight-year-old boy walking to school. Do you like it? I asked him. No, I hate it, he told me. We sit in class and then the bell rings and then we sit in another class, he said.

Our school system came from Prussia, of all places, and its original purpose was to create soldiers who wouldn’t run away in battle. Education in the far past was about a bunch of kids sitting in a circle and participating with a mentor. That’s what the ancient Greeks did and they created a lot of educated people.

Why in the world do we need 12 years of schooling anyway? What exactly does it take 12 years to learn? And that doesn't include college and graduate and post-graduate work. Is all of this necessary? It isn't a good thing, of that I am convinced.

I read an article several years ago about a rather eccentric man who lived in a tent with his 12-year-old daughter. He taught her out of a set of old encyclopedias. When the police finally found them, investigators said the daughter was "unusually intelligent and knowledgeable."

She’d be in her early 20s now. I sometimes wonder what she’s doing.

I also recently met a mother who told me her highly intelligent 15-old year daughter was having such a terrible time in school she wanted to drop out and was staying home from school a lot because she was “sick.” She was on the verge of being expelled. I told her both my parents got GEDs and they were easy to get. I’ve never seen her since and I sometimes wonder what happened to the daughter.

I'm certainly not recommending living in a tent with your kid, only pointing out perhaps schools are only not necessary, maybe they are instead a obstacle to true education. Watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off sometime. It reminds me of a nightmare I sometimes have: it is the last day of high school and for some unknown but horrible reason I won't graduate and have to go another year. It is the only nightmare I have repeatedly.

It'd be better if a lot of kids started as apprentices at 12 years old. I've known several people who just simply could not finish high school. All of them later became successful in their field. One friend who lived next door to me when we were in high school dropped out and later became an airline pilot. None of them could find a place, a meaning and a purpose in schools they attended.

As for families, I do know one thing; the State is the cause of most of their problems. Interference by public schools, interference in the economy, destruction of neighborhoods and communities...all of these things are created and exacerbated by the State. Interference by the State takes away the meaning and purpose of people's lives, and tries to replace it with its meaning, which are generally bureaucracy, militarization, war and empire.

The State does a lot of bad things to people. Taking away a true meaning to their lives and replacing it with false one is one of the worst. Or, as Robert Nisbet put it in his The Quest for Community, "The conflict between the central power of the political State, and the whole set of functions and authorities contained in church, family, guild and local community has been, I believe, the main source of those dislocations of social structure and the uprootings of status which lie behind the problem of community in our age."

Oh, yes. Oh, yes, indeed.

Friday, May 20, 2016

Why the Mainstream Media is a Joke, Reason 217

"Trump is a misogynist."

What does that even mean? Trump hates women? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

The only people I know who hate women are serial killers who torture, kill and mutilate them. And rapists.

Speaking of rapists, Bill Clinton is a rapist. He's also a serial sexual predator, and he's married to a drunken lesbian. He not only can't keep his dick in his pants, he can't keep his cigar in his shirt pocket!

Does Bill hate women? It appears he certainly doesn't like them very much.

I've mentioned before there is a philosophical problem know as "concepts and their referents." How do the concepts in our head relate to reality? How we know that car and cat and dog refer to those things in reality? How do we know that a Great Dane and a chihuahua are both dogs? How does a dog know that a pug and a rottweiler are the same species that it is?

"Misogynist" is a left-wing word and doesn't refer to anything in reality. Certainly not Trump. Trump, no. Maybe he doesn't take women all that seriously, but then, what smart man does? Women are for making sandwiches and babies (the writer Edith Wharton said women are for "pleasure and procreation." Did that make her a "misogynist"?).

There are some truly ridiculous words out there. "Cis." "Transgender." Those things don't even exist.

And when words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom. Confucius said that, thousands of years ago.