Friday, 30 March 2007

The Knowledge Economy

Academics call time on 'illiterate' students

Britain, we're told, is going to replace its manufacturing economy with finance (moving money from one account to another and skimming a percentage off the top) and our glorious new 'knowledge economy' where 50% of kids go to university and get a degree.

But there's a problem.

Lecturers at some of the new universities are calling for a public debate on standards because they say functionally illiterate students are being passed so they do not drop out of courses.

Now, let's get this right. They've spent nearly fifteen years in school, but at the end they're functionally illiterate. If schools can't teach people to be literate in more than a decade of schooling, what the hell are they doing?

But it gets worse. These aren't just any students, these are among the 50% of students whose grades are high enough to get a place at a university.

And they're functionally illiterate.

What does that say about the 50% whose grades are too low?

But it gets worse.

Lecturers at Bournemouth and Teesside universities have complained that their fail grades were reversed to enable students to stay on.

So these students are functionally illiterate, and their work is being marked accordingly. But instead of failing the course, their grades are being increased so they pass!

At least if they failed they might have an incentive to learn how to read and write. Passing them merely serves to further devalue the university's degrees as they graduate illiterate students who will have no hope in the real world.

But this is where the real world conflicts with the government's policy of pushing 50% of kids into university and making them pay for it. These kids have paid thousands of pounds for their course... what are they going to do if they don't get a degree at the end of it?

Thanks to Labour, the whole British schooling system is a failure from top to bottom. Kids are coming out of school with decent grades even though they're illiterate. That is bad enough in itself, but now illiteracy is no longer considered to disqualify them from receiving their degree.

The end result of grade inflation and 'everyone must pass' grading is that many recent graduates are dumb as rocks. And this is the basis for a 'knowledge economy'?

Thursday, 29 March 2007

The Demise of Western Government

The two most important tasks of a government are to protect the borders from invaders and to protect the people from criminals inside those borders.

But is there a single Western government which can be said to do either of those things effectively, despite the massive taxes they now take from us? They keep demanding more power, and more money, yet do less and less with it.

Crime is exploding around the Western world because the decent people have been disarmed and are prosecuted if they try to defend themselves. The borders are undefended, because 'multiculturalism' and 'anti-racism' has made illegal immigration seem a minor misdemeanour.

America, for example, claims to be fighting a 'War on Terror', yet the border with Mexico is porous and the government refuses to take effective action to protect it or to throw out the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country. How can anyone take them seriously when they spend more money on 'Defence' than any nation in the history of the world, yet allow millions of invaders into their country?

Britain is 'fighting crime' with a rapidly growing high-tech police state of cameras, databases and -- soon -- ID cards, yet crime rates continue to rise. The police concentrate their high-tech powers on such dangerous crimes as speeding or driving without paying road tax, while the streets become ever less safe and property crimes like burglary are ignored.

The only kind of crime that modern governments seem to care about is tax evasion by the middle class, and the only kind of defence they seem to care about is defending the politicians from the people. How long can a nation survive when the borders are open, crime is ever increasing, and the politicians no longer trust the people they supposedly represent?

Wednesday, 28 March 2007

Patriachal Empowerment

Feminists like to talk about how feminism has empowered them.

Viewed on a global scale and relative to its competition, the single most powerful society in the history of the world was the British Empire of the 19th century. It controlled 25% of the land and most of the oceans, making it far more powerful even than modern America.

And it was run by?

Queen Victoria.

Who, I should add for the benefit of dumb feminists, was a woman, and no fan of feminism:

"Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection"

I think history has proven her correct, don't you?

So, 'patriachal' society empowered Queen Victoria to run most of the world in the most powerful Empire the Earth has ever seen. Now feminism empowers women to be predatory divorce lawyers and third-rate firefighters.

Bit of a come-down, don't you think?

Tuesday, 27 March 2007

Buy Cat Food

I've been friends with several supposedly successful women in the last decade or so; at least as friendly as you can be with a species who'll use you for whatever they can get and then turn on you for the slightest imagined insult.

One thing I've noticed is that as they've grown older and more successful, most have ended up living alone with cats; either giving up on men or complaining that they can't find a 'good man' who wants to marry them.

Now, I've nothing against successful women so long as they're successful on their own merits and not because they were promoted over a more talented man. But doesn't it seem odd that their idea of success excludes the single biggest thing that a woman can do and a man can't: having babies?

The problem, I believe, is that feminist women simply don't understand men, and I admit that's hardly a surprise when they're mostly parroting an ideology created by raving lesbians. They have some understanding of their own female nature, because that's all they think about most of the time, and they imagine that lets them understand men too: after all, differences between sexes are purely cultural, aren't they?

What most women seem to want is casual, uncommitted relationships with 'bad boys' in their twenties and then marriage to a rich and successful man in their thirties who'll pay for their kids and a maid to look after them... typically followed by a fat divorce settlement from the same man in their forties.

Now, don't get me wrong. Men love sluts, and particularly rich sluts. But they sure don't want to marry one. A woman typically picks a man to marry because he's more successful than her and will provide for her and her kids. A man, on the other hand, typically wants a good mother for his kids, since in a world full of sluts he no longer has any other reason to marry. He wants someone who is faithful, looks after herself, will bring the kids up well and do what she can to make him happy as a small recompense for his acceptances of slaving away to support her and her progeny... and, last of all, someone who isn't going to divorce him on a whim, stealing most of his money and his kids. If he wanted to marry a second-rate man, he could just go gay.

A female lawyer might have a one-night stand with the twenty-year old mechanic who fixes her car, but she'd almost never consider marrying him. A male lawyer, on the other hand, would certainly consider marrying the attractive and bubbly twenty-year old waitress who flirts with him and provides service well beyond the call of duty every time he visits her restaurant.

The result is that a successful woman either gets really lucky, has one-night stands with 'bad boys' until she becomes a single mother and quite possibly loses her successful job, abandons her dream of 'the right one' and lives unhappily with some poor guy who'll she'll always inwardly despise... or settles for the cats.

I remember one of my successful women friends who'd been hitting on me then boasting about how she'd been asked to go on a trip with a rich guy on his yacht... needless to say, she wasn't hitting on me anymore. Then a few days later she was complaining that he'd stood her up. Most likely, I imagine, because he'd found some twenty year old who looked much better in a bikini than a thirty-ish career woman and would be much more fun to have around.

So as women become more successful in law, politics, academia, finance, 'human resources' and similar areas -- and note how much they grativate towards jobs that are parasitic on the real economy, not actual productive jobs like engineering or mining -- there are going to be a lot of single women in their thirties and older living alone with their cats as surrogate children.

The logical female response would be to forget 'success' and concentrate on giving men something they want. Instead, most will continue to be 'empowered' until they're empowered into childless and lonely old age, whining to any young girls still dumb enough to listen about the evils of men and telling them they should be 'empowered' and 'successful' themselves.

The logical male response, of course, is to invest in cat food companies, to live free and well off the earnings of rich feminists with surrogate kids to feed.

Monday, 26 March 2007

Marriage Enslaves Men

A few weeks ago I was reading a thread on a forum totally unconnected with feminism, where one of the female posters made a snide comment in one of her posts about how 'marriage enslaved and oppressed women... but let's not go off topic here'.

Now, we'll ignore the typical way that a feminist felt the right to make such a claim and then imply that no-one else should have any right to respond to it because that would take the thread 'off-topic'; so she could have her say without having to get into any kind of discussion. Instead, let's just look at the absurdity of such a claim.

Feminists such as the poster mentioned believe that men only married women so that those EVIL men could enslave their wife and oppress her. Isn't that just about the dumbest thing anyone has ever spouted to the world?

Imagine for a moment that you're a man and you like enslaving and oppressing women, so you create an institution that's intended solely to allow you do to so, and call it 'marriage'.

Does anyone in their right mind think that a man would willingly choose to tie himself to just one woman for life in order to enslave and oppress her, while having to turn down every other woman in the world? And does even someone who could believe that absurdity believe that he would enslave that woman but not allow himself to replace her when he got bored?

This is typical self-centered feminist thinking. Only a feminist could believe that she is so important that a man would sacrifice access to every other woman in the world _solely in order to enslave her_. To anyone who thinks about the situation seriously, the whole claim is crazy.

Instead, let's think about traditional marriage for a moment. The man and women marry. The woman then stays at home, has kids, raises them, cooks dinner, cleans the house, and spends the rest of the time chatting to her friends. The man goes out, spends his day digging coal down a mine, assembling cars, or clearing shit blockages in the sewers, and comes home worn out but with money to keep his family alive.

Who is the slave here? Who is being oppressed? The woman who's paid to stay at home and raise her kids, or the man who's having to spend his life doing things that not only would he not willingly choose to do, but which actively put his life at risk?

Hopefully the answer is obvious.

Now, that's not to say that men and women didn't both benefit from marriage. Women got to have kids and had a husband who'd support her while she did so. Men got to have kids with a good chance that they were his own, and his wife did the house-work so he didn't have to when he slumped down in his arm-chair covered in coal-dust or knocked back the first martini of the night after a day travelling door-to-door trying to sell brushes to house-wives. Marriage worked, which is why it was the norm for thousands of years before feminists decided to destroy it... but let's not have any illusions about who was being enslaved.

So please, cut the crap. When a woman claims that marriage enslaved and oppressed women, the only sensible solution is to laugh at them for believing such an absurd notion.

Sunday, 25 March 2007

Feminists hate women

There's something I've never understood about feminism. You'd imagine that 'feminism' would be an ideology aiming to produce better women. Yet what feminists actually appear to want is to turn women into second-rate men.

Think about that for a moment. If there was a 'masculinism' movement, it would be about men wanting to be smarter, tougher and more masculine, not about men wanting to become second-rate women. We'd be demanding free porn and beer, compulsory football, and hookers on the National Health Service, not our right to be Victoria's Secret bikini models.

So why is that feminists spend most of their time whining about how EVIL men won't let them do traditionally male jobs just because they're less able? That, for example, a hundred pound woman can't get a job as a firefighter, where she may be expected to carry a three-hundred pound woman out of a burning house? Or that she can't join the Army and go to the front lines to be shot at and killed?

Now, I realise this is a rhetorical question and that the more vocal feminists are probably raving, predatory lesbians with penis envy, but what I don't understand is why so few people find this strange? How did we ever get into a state where hatred of women by women is 'politically correct'?

Saturday, 24 March 2007

EUSSR is getting old

So apparently the EU is fifty, and apparently it's something worth celebrating:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6490437.stm

Actually, they're probably right. It's hard to see how the EU will survive to be sixty, and that would certainly be something worth celebrating. Far from being beneficial to the people of Europe, the EU is just another bloated socialist scam attempting to rebuild the Soviet Union in Western Europe. It's a colossal intrusive bureaucracy that adds vast amounts of new regulation while sucking up vast amounts of taxpayers' money to keep vast numbers of worthless bureaucrats in cushy jobs.

That in itself wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't determined to destroy local cultures. We're told that 'diversity is strength', and yet the EU plan is to eliminate diversity by filling every country with immigrants from every other, creating some bland Europeanism instead. Even that wouldn't be so bad if criminals and welfare-seekers from the poor countries weren't flocking to the rich countries to take advantage of their 'rights' to rob the natives, either directly by mugging them or indirectly by claiming welfare.

Then we have the Euro with interest rates set for Germany's weak economy which cause massive credit-fuelled inflation in countries where those rates are way too low. Irish house prices have exploded over the last few years thanks to cheap credit, and now that rates are rising to suit Germany, that cheap credit is suddenly becoming a bankrupting liability. Either a large fraction of the Irish population will be stuck with debts they can't repay, or a generation of kids will be unable to ever think of buying a house. Neither is a good choice.

How much longer can it be before the people of Europe say 'enough!' and mean it? The USSR didn't quite last seventy years... something tells me that the EUSSR won't even last that long.

Sunday, 18 March 2007

Where did it all go wrong?

I don't know quite when it happened, but somewhere in the last twenty years I must have fallen through a wormhole from the real world to an absurdist parody of it. Growing up all those years ago the world seemed like it made at least some sense, and anyone who had predicted many of the political and economic changes to come would have been looking at a career as a comedian.

I still hope that one day I'll wake up and discover that the past decade or more has been just an extended dream. But until that time, I can only hope to chronicle some of the absurdity that we're facing until enough others wake up to start to bring some sanity back to a world that's been turned into comedy by 'political correctness', 'feminism', 'multiculturalism' and all the other ills that have been visited on us in that time.