So, now Democrats have declared that it is so vitally important that women be sexually satisfied that the taxpayer must be further robbed, and the Vatican robbed as well, to guarantee that they will be relieved of all responsibility and shielded from all consequences of pursuing recreational sex.

(As an aside, I am deeply disappointed in Rush for apologizing for stating a readily obvious fact. Especially considering that she is not a real law student, but enrolled, taking up a space that could have been used by a sincere student, for the express purpose of her childish activism.)

We wouldn’t want to be sexist, so if taxpayers and the Vatican must pay for female law students to have sex without consequences, of course they must provide the same for male students. I have read that in recent years ladies of the evening have had to lower their prices, thanks to the financial crisis, but providing carefree recreational sex to young men will still be considerably more expensive than providing it to women; Vox Day did the math and calculated that with birth control expenses like the ones she claims, the girl must be having sex three to four times a day, every single day of the year. (And to think she was called a slut!) Still, we mustn’t be unfair. If it will make everyone feel better, I volunteer to publicly call the young men bounders or sex addicts or whatever epithet is considered uncomplimentary enough.

As a bonus, after a couple of months law students will be so exhausted that we can look forward to a future without lawyers.

One reason that grand utopian schemes never work is that human beings really do not understand each other. I don’t just mean that nowadays we have lost touch with eternal truths about human nature, although we have. I mean that people who are different from each other really cannot predict how the other will react to things, or how they will interpret them. This becomes clear every time I assume that even a Democrat will understand some simple, indisputable fact, and instead they spin bizarre fantasies I never could have dreamed of. The way they keep finding excuses to believe in global warming no matter how much of the “evidence” is proven to be forged is one example. But this is not only about liberals and conservatives, there are infinitely more divisions across which we can baffle each other. Did you know that there are people who liked the second Hulk movie better than the first? I have met at least three of them! In the flesh! And they had no motive for lying about it!

It’s really appalling how much I learn from Cracked. Thanks to it, I just a few days ago found out that innumerable people took Gordon Gekko as a role model.

To put this in my personal context, when I saw this movie, I was a 17-year-old in the process of memorizing the complete works of Ayn Rand. I was a staunch capitalist. I went to that movie with no idea what it was going to be about; I was going to see the actress who played Madison the mermaid.

Even at the age of 17, even though the movie was an indictment of the corruption of capitalism, I understood perfectly that Gordon Gekko was, you know, bad. I didn’t even leave the theater going, “How dare those pinkos criticize our wonderful system!” because the message was nothing so simplistic. No doubt the movie was interpreted by many (and probably intended by its makers) as an indictment of capitalism as a whole instead of as a warning about where the system can and does go wrong, but any pro-capitalist with an IQ higher than that of a golden retriever should understand the movie’s message of “this right here is where things can go wrong and we need to keep an eye on that”.

But it turns out that an awful lot of people took the movie, not as a cautionary tale about a flaw in the system or as the story of an individual bad person, but as an instruction manual.

Over the years, the film’s screenwriter Stanley Weiser has been approached by numerous people who told him, “The movie changed my life. Once I saw it I knew that I wanted to get into such and such business. I wanted to be like Gordon Gekko”. In addition, both Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas still have people come up to them and say that they became stockbrokers because of their respective characters in the film.


Okay, people, if you can’t understand what a pro-capitalist teenager understood about that movie, you should probably be… well, locked up, actually.

Which a lot of such people are now, with more to come, so there you go.

For me personally, the lesson here is, “You have no clue what is going on in other people’s heads. Indeed, you couldn’t imagine anything so crazy or stupid if you spent centuries trying. So don’t assume you have a clue what’s going on.”

A relative of mine is a high school teacher. She is also a moonbat of the first water. I hasten to add that she is related to me only by marriage, we share no DNA.

I only endure her boorish behavior out of courtesy to my other relatives, most of whom care more that someone is their first cousin or married to their brother than if they belong to the Wild-Eyed Lunatic Fringe Party.

Compulsory education is often defended, when people point out how destructive, dangerous, and unconstitutional it is, with the claim that it is necessary so that its inmates may learn “social skills”. This is a euphemism for “being beaten up frequently”. No one actually believes that anyone can learn social skills by being locked up with a bunch of other children or teenagers who have not had time to learn them either. Kids do not learn social skills these days because they are almost never in the presence of adults who have them. The only adults they spend much time with are teachers, who do not.

Teaching high school destroys social skills. My relative has spent so much time standing in front of a captive audience full of prisoners who have no choice but to listen to her nattering that she has lost all ability to carry on a conversation. Her method is to simply open her mouth and spew out everything that pops into her head, continuing for hours on end without the slightest pause in which any other person might contribute a remark, paying no mind to whether anyone present has the slightest interest in anything she is saying, or indeed whether it is likely to offend them. She told my June Cleaver-like grandmother a joke about male-on-male prison rape, and when Grandmother didn’t get it, she explained it to her. She saw no reason not to launch into tirades about how evil and racist and stupid and horrible all Republicans are in front of relatives who she knew to be Republicans, and saw no irony in half an hour later delivering a diatribe about the death of civility.

It was while listening to one of her rambling monologues, full of opinions that sounded like those of exceptionally conceited 15-year-olds, that it dawned on me that spending all of her adult life surrounded by teenagers had prevented her from ever growing up herself. She kept rehashing the notions of her adolescence which seemed so edgy and daring in the 60’s when she first heard them, and the kids who were forced by law to listen to her were impressed because they were kids. Better yet, kids from a small town, who naturally thought anyone who wasn’t a church-goer was a courageous rebel. It is unsuitable for a woman in her sixties to be saying things because they impress people who are driving on a learner’s permit.

I have all kinds of ideas about how schools could be converted into educational institutions, mostly taken from history. I won’t even bother to enumerate them, because anyone who subscribes to my blog probably has virtually identical ones. But there are a few I reverse engineered from observation of this relative of mine, to prevent people like her from ever getting their hands on our children.

Often when I have to listen to this relative brag about how she indoctrinated helpless teenagers with her puerile ideology, I am sickened by the thought that the parents of her students are robbed of much of what they earn by the government, which then drags their children at gunpoint to daily brainwashing camp and gives that money to my relative and her accomplices to train those children to reject everything those parents value. My relative, of course, never has to endure the consequences of her actions. She has no children and at her age never will. She never has to see her children in prison, or with venereal disease, or divorced three times, or on antidepressants, or simply acting like asses because they took her ideology to heart. Nor did she have to go to school with children who were raised with her beliefs, as I did. She had the privilege of going to school with children from father-headed, church-going households, but is happy enough to condemn the rest of us to spending our childhoods locked up with juvenile delinquents who fear neither fathers nor Father.

So I propose that only people who have children of their own should be permitted to be teachers. They should have to endure, firsthand, the consequences of the ideas and ideals they promote. Jewish tradition requires that rabbis marry, and while I can also see the merits of a celibate clergy, I feel certain that this was one of the reasons.

My relative has never in her life had any job other than schoolteacher. This is common practice. When I was in elementary school, most of my teachers were young women, women who smoked pot and practiced free love in the 60’s and then were unleashed on classrooms as soon as they finished college.

Now, think about this. New college graduates are not permitted to be sergeants, or CEOs, or general managers, or supervisors. They may have natural leadership abilities, but experience is required before they are qualified to wield authority over others. Over adults with legal rights, with the freedom to quit or to file complaints or to sue. And yet we imagine that people who are not yet fit to give orders to drivers and pizza makers at Domino’s are responsible enough that completely helpless children should be handed to them on a platter? A teacher has infinitely more power over her victims than any workplace authority, in some cases they are even permitted to physically assault their inmates, they have almost no supervision – wardens can only dream of that sort of license – and yet we give them this virtually unlimited power without requiring that they display the slightest sign that they might be capable of handling it.

Further, since most teachers go straight from college to teaching, this means that they are allegedly preparing the young for something they know nothing whatever about: the real world. These teachers spend the first two decades and more of their lives earning approval from the authority figures in their lives by telling those figures how smart they are. I hate to remember how many college students I have heard cynically manipulating their professors. “Yeah, my professor’s really feminist, so I’m making sure to put a lot of that stuff in.” Teachers and professors will happily return flattery. A newly minted teacher has spent all of her life hearing Marxist narcissists telling her how smart she is because she parrots their bloviating with so much obsequiousness. Most teachers are only a few IQ points above mental retardation, and in any sane era the only legal professions they could have engaged in would have involved mops, but they have been convinced that they are shining geniuses. Most of us have a great deal of youthful conceit knocked out of us by our first few jobs, but not teachers. They waltz into their own classrooms expecting more of the same flattery they got by blarneying their own teachers, and canny children learn to game this very quickly.

So, in order to ensure that only people who have had time to mature become teachers, I propose that the profession be given a minimum age of forty. People who want to be teachers will have to first spend years performing real jobs. In addition, in those jobs they must demonstrate that they can responsibly wield power over other  adults.

Of course, we also need to change everything else about schools. These two rules are only a drop in the bucket.


Make up your mind

I was just loading the dishwasher when I suddenly noticed one of the basic contradictions of modern thought. That’s the kind of thing you’re usually doing when you have these insights, which is generally annoying to others, but that’s how our brains work.

Lately I’ve been trying to come to terms with the fact that I my resilience has sharply decreased. Which is not surprising; both in emotional terms of too many trips around the same block and physical terms of the changing neurochemistry of someone in early middle age, it would be very strange if I were still as resilient as I was ten years ago.

But I have to avoid mentioning this to my friends, because most of them are positive thinkers who want to insist that humans can recover from anything and be rompingly happy and so on, and if they don’t it’s only because they believe that they can’t, etc. It’s actually pretty appalling how thoroughly the self-help philosophy has infiltrated the zeitgeist. I’m not sufficiently free of it that I wasn’t hard on myself when I started to realize that some things in my head are just not going to get better in this lifetime, not at this point. It’s like something I’ve said before: whatever does not kill you does not necessarily make you stronger, more likely it will just soften you up so that whatever comes along next does kill you.

So we’ve got this whole culture that is in denial about the reality of psychological damage (except when we’re suing each other over it). I’ve discussed before and will doubtless discuss again the way modern society has done away with most of the safeguards that used to protect us from such damage. For instance, the path to marriage was clearly delineated. Of course it wasn’t always happy, but it also wasn’t nearly as brutal as today’s system of locking horny teenagers up together all day every day and expecting them to remain chaste, then casting them adrift on the world to try to forge a connection with no social or legal support for doing so successfully. We have set up a system which guarantees that everyone will have their heart broken at least once. Why the hell did we do that?

There are other examples, but I have to wrap this up so I can get to the grocery store. (Ah, the glamourous world of the blogger.) So, we have used all that positive thinking babble to convince ourselves that there is no such thing as actual damage to the psyche, just a refusal to get over things. Never mind that we know know about the genuine physical changes to the brain that occur with traumatic events or the loss (for whatever reason) of a loved one, we’ll just ignore all that science stuff when it doesn’t suit our received wisdom. What’s important is, there is no reason for families or societies to protect their members from trauma because the traumatized can just shake it off with a little effort and if they don’t, it’s because they don’t want to. (This is the philosophical descendant of the Puritan belief that if your life isn’t going well, that’s a sign that God hasn’t predestined you for salvation.)

But at the same time, damaging programs such as affirmative action and sex discrimination lawsuits are based on the premise that people are so incredibly weak that having people doubt them, however subtly, is so permanently damaging that generations of special privileges are necessary to recover. (For a rebuttal of this, see: Jews.)

So, if you spent your formative years being battered and your “education” consisted of borderline retarded pedophiles reveling in the raw unbridled domination involved in saying nasty things to children, and then spent years devoting your heart and your life to one person after another in the hope of finding one who hadn’t accepted the indoctrination that hopping from one partner to another is normal, you have no business not grinning ear to ear in ecstatic joy all the time and definitely no right to be even slightly un-optimistic about future efforts.

However, if society in general did not constantly tell you that your future excellence was an assured thing, then clearly you are far too damaged to be expected to even refrain from committing violent crimes without tons of help.

As usual, the modern world has it completely backwards.

A few days ago I came across a blog post (which I can’t find now) criticizing Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series. The post said that the theories in it were outdated, and went on to explain that the imaginary discipline of “psychohistory”, which the sage Hari Seldon used to predict how civilization would decline and what would be the results of his plan to ease the fall and rebuilding, had now been debunked by Chaos theory, also known as Complexity.

The blogger was probably right. I always dismissed the “psychohistory” as a sort of narrative convenience, like FTL space travel, used to make the story move along, not as something remotely likely to work in real life. Now I realize that this was probably my assumption, based on my certain knowledge that the behavior of civilizations is just not that predictable. Oh, some things are – that socialism will lead to disaster, or that democracy will eventually corrupt itself when politicians create new pools of voters for their own use – but there are many different paths that declines and rises can take, and many factors in what determines which one will happen in a particular case. So I took it for granted that of course what Hari Seldon was doing wasn’t possible in real life, and didn’t really realize that some people might think that it was, despite reading of examples.

So, Chaos theory, according to Wikipedia, states that “[s]mall differences in initial conditions…) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.”

While it is true that the modern incarnation of the theory started in the 60’s and became widely known in the 90’s, the above is of course a basic premise of conservative philosophy, going back at least as far as Edmund Burke, probably further. So, science guys, nice to see that you’ve finally caught up to us fuddy-duddies smoking cigars and sipping brandy in our gentlemen’s clubs, writing indignant letters to the Times.

Unless you live even further under a rock than I do, you know all about the atheist chick who’s been bragging er complaining that a guy was, improbably enough, attracted to her, and how astonished Richard Dawkins was that his fellow brights turned on him when he talked sense for the first time in decades.

So I’ll just say how thoughty it is of the brights to work so hard at thwarting the reproduction of their own kind, not to mention toppling one of their own heathen idols for us. We’ll reclaim the world in a generation at this rate.

Everybody is linking this today, rather gleefully, and frothing at the mouth about how terrible it is that some people advise women about how to minimize their chances of getting raped. I’ve been flamed by feminists before for denouncing their long-standing habit of urging women to put themselves in danger. But that today’s women need to be told “getting stinking drunk is unsafe” or “don’t go to crime-ridden neighborhoods in a miniskirt at 1 am”, let alone believe that they should be offended at having such commonsense measures pointed out to them, shows why today’s governments keep expanding the nanny state.

The absurdity of the item linked above is so complete that there is really no way to answer it. Are we supposed to listen seriously to people who imagine that violent people are going to listen to this kind of thing? That it is not more effective to advise prospective victims on how to safeguard themselves? Potential rapists have no interest in restraining themselves. Potential victims have a great deal.

In the interest of suggesting something more constructive than either set of advice above, I have wearily compiled a short list which, if followed, will cut rapes down to less than ten percent of what they are now. I absolutely guarantee it.

Feminists and liberals will oppose every measure below with all their might, because they do not care at all if women get raped.

1. Restore fatherhood. Virtually all violent crimes are committed by people who grew up in fatherless homes. So if we want to lower crime – which feminists do not – we will abolish no-fault divorce and default mother custody. Also we must deny unwed mothers welfare unless they surrender their children for adoption by a married couple.

2. Abolish co-education. Locking girls up with boys who have not yet been socialized guarantees that many of them will be sexually assaulted before they have even begun puberty. If feminists wanted girls to be safe from violence, they would have rioted until co-education was outlawed decades ago.

3. Have boys taught by men. Female teachers have demonstrated that they cannot stand up to a six-year-old with a penis. Really, this is as unfair to boys as it is to girls. When a boy spends his childhood and adolescence physically and sexually assaulting girls and getting not so much as an admonition from the authority figures in his life, small wonder that he imagines he can continue committing assault when he comes of age. When he finally chooses a victim who is not his classmate and not on a campus, he will probably be completely astonished to find himself arrested this time.

4. Abolish Third World immigration. Especially Muslim. Return most such immigrants who are already here back to wherever they came from. Liberals become enraged when this well documented fact is pointed out to them, but such immigrants commit crimes wildly out of proportion to their numbers. If Muslims in Europe were sent home, the rape rate over there would virtually vanish.

5. Restore cultural respect for chastity. Help women avoid foolishly putting themselves in danger to win the approval of irresponsible feminists by giving them societal support in taking care of themselves. Help spiritually weak men – the ones who commit nearly all crimes, and thus have always needed society’s help to control themselves – by not constantly provoking their animal side.

I wrote this out of frustration that friends of mine – intelligent women, who should have better sense – have been so indoctrinated that they think the nonsense I linked above deserves applause. But mostly, I feel incredibly weary that this is what is taking up people’s attention. The economy dissolving, crime and terrorism ever more rampant, and various social pathologies are destroying our civilization, and people are making a fuss about how terrible it is to give women advice that would make them a little bit safer from the hell progressives have created. The words “Rome” and “fiddle” come to mind.

EDIT: And just after I finished this, my dear Hypatia complained about coming across some idiot declaring that saying that someone has “a big fat mouth” is “fat-phobic”, and a commercial came on tv asserting that using the word “retarded” to disparage someone who does stupid things, like complain about women being advised not to put themselves in vulnerable positions, is just as bad as using nasty ethnic slurs. Fiddling indeed.