Equality, the foundation of everything. How can we live in a civilized society without the premise that everyone is equal? But do we ever take the advice of that great philosopher, Hugh Akston, and examine our premises? Think for a moment, dear friends, what equality actually entails. Shall we start where the term equality is actually applicable? Bear with me, if you will, as I delve into a field for which I have the utmost respect yet in which I am utterly hopeless; mathematics. The logic behind the numbers is where I am able to hold my own so this seems like a good area to elaborate upon.
Let us take two numbers, 5 and 2. I believe that everyone will agree that these are both numbers, there are several other factors which they share but mathematically, they are not equal. No matter how we pervert the field of mathematics, five will never equal two, unless of course, we modify one of the numbers. Subtract 3 from 5 or add 3 to 2 and we achieve equality. Is this what we hope to achieve with humanity? The growing trend whereas the youth of today is taught to hate everything white, middle to upper class, Christian, or male lends itself nicely to this equation. But are we willing to admit that this is our goal? That we are attempting to homogenize the world's population in order to promote equality? It seems as if the destruction of a dominant culture is acceptable; it is not fair that one culture should hold so much power, let's kneecap them and bring them down to our height. To be fair, "our height" is a slight misnomer, most of the wars waged against middle class white society seem to be conducted by middle class white people; because that's not condescending or anything.
Think for a moment about the radical notion of recognizing, and occasionally celebrating, the strengths and weaknesses of each number. There are plenty of times where 5 is the number which we need. There are times where circumstances call for a 2. And, of course, there are occasions where one of the numbers must me modified in order to fill a specific role. Where would the world be without fives, without twos, with nothing but a string of equal numbers?
But Mr. Cavalier, the young minds of today proclaim, we are not claiming that people are equal in actual essence, they just all deserve to be treated as if they are equal, with equal opportunities and rights! Of course, this changes everything. I often look at a dozen eggs and inform people that there are nineteen eggs contained within, I prefer to treat numbers equally. It truly is unfair that twelve has the opportunity to represent the number of eggs, nineteen should have the chance as well. Of course two plus two equals four, mathematically, but why limit oneself to the bourgeois notion of numerical equality? Two plus two should be able to equal five, twelve, or eight thousand; after all, they are all numbers and deserve an equal chance. I humbly suggest that we do away with job interviews, college entrance exams, and anything else which promotes the outdated notion of merit and inequality; perhaps a lottery system would promote a fair and equal opportunity to all. Ellsworth M. Toohey would be incredibly pleased by the direction logic has drastically veered.
No, you are willfully missing the point, I have been told, it's not that everyone should get the job, it's that everyone deserves a chance to interview for it. First, I only willfully miss moronic points. Second, you are digressing quite palpably from the definition of equality. And third, why would this seem like a decent idea in any logical setting? Of course there are people more qualified for this school, position, or...name a noun, but it would be unfair to give them the opportunity. Let's insert several unqualified individuals into the mix, for fairness and equality.
Let me be clear, I am not claiming that one group is superior to another (in certain instances, one group is superior to another), I am simply claiming that equality is nonexistent in human beings. Men are not equal to women, the rich are not equal to the poor, intelligent people are not equal to unintelligent people; but A, A will always equal A.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Λερνία Ὕδρα
As a young man, at the dawn of my ethnonationalistic fervor, I began to idolize Vercingetorix of the Gauls. He represented to me, the metaphoric struggle of Celt vs. Roman, rugged individualism against the forces of spirit crushing order and automation. This was obviously foolish on several levels but can you blame a teenager in his rebellious phase? The main issues which my younger, foolish counterpart failed to grasp are as follows: The most obvious is that Vercingetorix actually morphed the Gauls into the very Romans which he so despised. In order to attempt victory, the Gauls were forced to adopt Roman tactics in their fighting. This was the most logical action for Vercingetorix to take and I find no fault in it but it does slightly dampen the Romantic notion of the noble Gaul standing for freedom and individualism. The second point, of which this post is focused upon, is that by uniting the Gauls, Vercingetorix hastened the conquest of Gaul by a significant number of years. There are sixty five individual kingdoms of Gaul which I can name; every one was a nation unto itself with its own tribal leader or king. They all shared similar culture and customs but they were separate peoples and had no notion of a Gallic Nation. Once the surviving tribes were united under Vercingetorix, Caesar no longer had to defeat the Belgae, the Arverni, the Sequani, and the rest; he had to defeat Vercingetorix. There was now a head of state and that head had only to be cut off to defeat the state.
Jump now, to a slightly more familiar tale, that of Alfred of Wessex. Alfred the Great! The man who saved England from the Danes and restored Christian order to the land! Also, the man who handed England to William the Bastard. It all starts in Anno Domini 793 in Lindisfarne, Northumbria where St. Cuthbert's Monastery was raided and burned to the ground. There were several such raids in the continuing years but it wasn't until 865, when the Ragnarsson brothers arrived with their great army, that the possibility of conquest became a reality. Northumbria was soon conquered, followed by the kingdoms of East Anglia and Mercia. Wessex was the last kingdom of what we now call England!(Wales, Cornwall, Cumbria, and Scotland are not counted as part of England) Everything was in the pious hands of Alfred (after he stole the crown from his nephew with false tales of papal intervention). And Alfred followed through, he slowly but surely recaptured the kingdoms and drove the Danes to the very edges of the island! We love to concentrate on the heroic antics of Alfred but oftentimes fail to recognize what allowed him to save the English peoples: Four separate kingdoms. Northumbria fell and the Northumbrians fled to East Anglia; East Anglia fell, on to Mercia and so on. They were all united by their blood as Anglo-Saxons but separated by four different heads of four different states. Four heads are much more difficult to sever than one, especially when these heads work together and offer shelter to one another.
So now that Alfred has saved the day, what does he do? He destroys the very concept that saved his people by declaring himself king of the now united Angleland. It is presented as four heads being merged into one stronger head but in truth, three heads are chopped off. Fast forward a few decades to September 25, 1066, The Battle Stamford Bridge where Harold II of England defeats the invading Harald Hardrada of Norway. Harold barely made the journey North in time but he was successful; the Kingdom of England was safe from Norwegian invaders! Unfortunately, three days later, William the Bastard of Normandy landed at Pevensey. After another frantic march and some basic preparations, Harold arrived at Hastings on October 13 to do battle with William. Crash, boom, bang, arrow through the eye, and England is now William's property. Poor Harold could have used some more heads.
I could continue to recount stories of unification gone wrong but I'm sure you have grasped my point. Feel free to investigate Harald Tanglehair's unification of Norway, the Roman survival technique of splitting the empire, or countless other events if you need more convincing. I will now reluctantly move my topic to a more modern subject: The United States of America. At least that was the idea; the united states seems to be a vestigial name in these days of strong, centralized government. Imagine, if you will, an attempt to conquer the US. Would you prefer the conquerer to defeat the government in Washington D.C. and think, "Great place, I'll contact the movers" or, "Shit, fifty more to go"?
Jump now, to a slightly more familiar tale, that of Alfred of Wessex. Alfred the Great! The man who saved England from the Danes and restored Christian order to the land! Also, the man who handed England to William the Bastard. It all starts in Anno Domini 793 in Lindisfarne, Northumbria where St. Cuthbert's Monastery was raided and burned to the ground. There were several such raids in the continuing years but it wasn't until 865, when the Ragnarsson brothers arrived with their great army, that the possibility of conquest became a reality. Northumbria was soon conquered, followed by the kingdoms of East Anglia and Mercia. Wessex was the last kingdom of what we now call England!(Wales, Cornwall, Cumbria, and Scotland are not counted as part of England) Everything was in the pious hands of Alfred (after he stole the crown from his nephew with false tales of papal intervention). And Alfred followed through, he slowly but surely recaptured the kingdoms and drove the Danes to the very edges of the island! We love to concentrate on the heroic antics of Alfred but oftentimes fail to recognize what allowed him to save the English peoples: Four separate kingdoms. Northumbria fell and the Northumbrians fled to East Anglia; East Anglia fell, on to Mercia and so on. They were all united by their blood as Anglo-Saxons but separated by four different heads of four different states. Four heads are much more difficult to sever than one, especially when these heads work together and offer shelter to one another.
So now that Alfred has saved the day, what does he do? He destroys the very concept that saved his people by declaring himself king of the now united Angleland. It is presented as four heads being merged into one stronger head but in truth, three heads are chopped off. Fast forward a few decades to September 25, 1066, The Battle Stamford Bridge where Harold II of England defeats the invading Harald Hardrada of Norway. Harold barely made the journey North in time but he was successful; the Kingdom of England was safe from Norwegian invaders! Unfortunately, three days later, William the Bastard of Normandy landed at Pevensey. After another frantic march and some basic preparations, Harold arrived at Hastings on October 13 to do battle with William. Crash, boom, bang, arrow through the eye, and England is now William's property. Poor Harold could have used some more heads.
I could continue to recount stories of unification gone wrong but I'm sure you have grasped my point. Feel free to investigate Harald Tanglehair's unification of Norway, the Roman survival technique of splitting the empire, or countless other events if you need more convincing. I will now reluctantly move my topic to a more modern subject: The United States of America. At least that was the idea; the united states seems to be a vestigial name in these days of strong, centralized government. Imagine, if you will, an attempt to conquer the US. Would you prefer the conquerer to defeat the government in Washington D.C. and think, "Great place, I'll contact the movers" or, "Shit, fifty more to go"?
The Rights of Man and All That Jazz
I am currently working on a post relating to Alfred of Wessex but I must take a moment to react to a fad sweeping the book of a thousand faces. A photo is being posted around the facebook that depicts a large red arrow pointing toward someone's profile picture with the text: "This Person Believes That Everyone Should Be Able To Marry". Okay, I'm in agreement so far but read the subtext: "Wipeout Homophobia on Facebook". I understand the sentiment yet I am forced to take issue with the proposal.
As someone who was raised with people from all walks of life, I become quite irate when it comes to gay bashing. I have close friends who happen to be gay and I would beat someone within an inch of their life to defend these friends. But wiping out homophobia? Many people take issue with Christianity, shall we wipe that out as well? And how about liberalism and conservatism? They both promote a great deal of bigotry and alienation let's wipe these out as well.
When I was in High School, I had a professor who made a great point that has stuck with me all of these years: "I hate the Ku Klux Klan with all of my being but I would die to secure their right to march on the capitol." I have attempted to reiterate this point, time and time again. A neo-nazi group held a rally in Lansing while I was living there and I was invited to join a protest, not against what they stood for but against their right to be there. At the anti-war protests in the mid 2000s there was always a counter-protest, not with signs which read "I disagree with you" but signs which read "Hippies Go Home". I have spoken out many times against the Occupy Wall Street nonsense but always based on their principles. The only time that I will go into their right to occupy is when I contrast the millions of dollars that they are costing the city with the social welfare that they are so fervently calling for.
I don't believe in democracy nor do I believe in equality but most of you do. Please take a moment to consider what democracy and equality entails; perhaps more than simply tolerating those people with whom you agree. Speak out against homophobia and defend yourselves and your friends but remember, they have just as much right to hate homosexuals as we do to hate everything that they stand for.
As someone who was raised with people from all walks of life, I become quite irate when it comes to gay bashing. I have close friends who happen to be gay and I would beat someone within an inch of their life to defend these friends. But wiping out homophobia? Many people take issue with Christianity, shall we wipe that out as well? And how about liberalism and conservatism? They both promote a great deal of bigotry and alienation let's wipe these out as well.
When I was in High School, I had a professor who made a great point that has stuck with me all of these years: "I hate the Ku Klux Klan with all of my being but I would die to secure their right to march on the capitol." I have attempted to reiterate this point, time and time again. A neo-nazi group held a rally in Lansing while I was living there and I was invited to join a protest, not against what they stood for but against their right to be there. At the anti-war protests in the mid 2000s there was always a counter-protest, not with signs which read "I disagree with you" but signs which read "Hippies Go Home". I have spoken out many times against the Occupy Wall Street nonsense but always based on their principles. The only time that I will go into their right to occupy is when I contrast the millions of dollars that they are costing the city with the social welfare that they are so fervently calling for.
I don't believe in democracy nor do I believe in equality but most of you do. Please take a moment to consider what democracy and equality entails; perhaps more than simply tolerating those people with whom you agree. Speak out against homophobia and defend yourselves and your friends but remember, they have just as much right to hate homosexuals as we do to hate everything that they stand for.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Democracy and the Educational Inflation
I recently read an article that discussed some of the earlier entrance exam questions for Ivy League schools. The questions ranged from Greek and Latin grammar to complex mathematics to historic geography and tactics. As I read through the questions, I lamented that the standards for higher education had been lowered so drastically. I yearned for a Romantic past of finishing schools and academic excellence straight out of History Boys and The Emperors' Club. I mourned for the dead poets' societies replaced by self-indulgent, coffee shop pseudo-intellectualism.
Now violently break from this nostalgic past with me as I reveal the author's surprising conclusion: This was a racist and classist time best left in the past. Yes, that is correct, according to this blogger-for-the-people, the study of Classics in preparation for university is purely intended to keep rich, white men in power. I know that when we peer into the past with our progressive, socio-centric goggles, they reveal that most universities were filled with rich, white men. They also reveal that most businesses, governments, and social clubs were also filled with rich, white men. According to one fervent Atheist with whom I have spoken, the Bible was even written by rich, white men -and no, she was not referring to the King James Translation-. Are we to conclude that Classical Studies are the cause of this social disgrace? Or are we able to perhaps realize that it was a different time with its obvious problems and frequently ignored strengths?
It is my humble opinion that anyone planning to enter the realm of higher education in the Western World needs to have, at the very least, a fairly decent grasp on the Classics. Love it or hate it, we live in the direct descendent of the Classical World. Our language, law, politics, math, science, religion, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and countless other fields come straight from the bowels of Attica and Latium. Why then, do we insist on crippling our children by neglecting to train them in the building blocks of education?
Some of it, I'm sure, is due to cultural guilt; the Western World has done awful things to Westerners and Non-Westerners alike. The appreciation of anything deemed "white" is a strict faux-pas in our progressive and open-minded society. But this cannot be the extent of it, we rarely sacrifice more than a nominal amount to maintain the illusion of political correctness. I believe that the driving force behind the decline of the Classics in our education is simply its difficulty; many people struggle with it and not everyone can stick with it. It is intellectual affirmative action; a product of the rampant democratization of every animate or inanimate object or concept that we encounter.
The unpopular fact is that not everyone belongs at university; it is a place for those entering academia, for doctors and lawyers. It should not become a tertiary school, trade school hybrid. There are two very serious consequences that arise from this transformation: We suffer an educational inflation and the overall quality of our education is significantly lowered.
I know very little about economics but I am aware that inflation is less than grand. The actual value of currency is reduced and, as I understand, it is closely associated with recession and depression. The same phenomenon is happening with education; we have minted too many degrees and their value is almost gone. High School diplomas have become ha'pennies and a four year degree is now our penny. Much like economic inflation, educational inflation also goes hand-in-hand with recession and depression. Children are informed by teachers, parents, counselors, and mentors that college is the only future. They go into debt gaining their degrees only to discover that all the choice jobs have been filled by applicants with either more experience or more education. The job market is filled with thousands of people with the same degree. The young men and women are now left with the choice to fill a menial position requiring no degree, or to gather more debt by furthering their education. This situation is just beginning to come to fruition with the so called "Generation Y". With the frenzied pace with which we continue to issue degrees, it is difficult to see the state of things improving anytime soon.
One of the easiest ways to create inflation is to print an ungodly amount of currency and freely distribute it to as many people as possible. This is what we have done with our educational system. University was once reserved for those elitist pigs that had the audacity to be gifted with a higher intellect and worked extremely hard to build upon that intellect. Apparently, Little Billy Desk-Chewer's mother felt that her son who, instead of improving his education, distracted everyone else from improving theirs', deserved a place at university as well. Now here's where it gets tricky, Little Billy Desk-Chewer is a moron; there is no conceivable way that he can pass the entrance exams. So what do we do? Obviously we lower the expectations of the colleges to Billy's level. (I may note that this has been a dramatization, events may not have occurred precisely as recounted above.) This is the nature of democracy; if everyone is to participate, we must insure that everyone is able to participate.
At one point, while working in a music store, I was reading the biography of Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm. A coworker walked up behind me as I was highlighting a particular passage:
"He also praised the great sense of freedom evident during his student years, and contrasted it with the later attempts of the state to regulate and control the university which had been founded in 1527 as Germany's first Protestant university. Government regulation of education, he believed, only promoted mediocracy."
My coworker was shocked and deeply offended that I had underlined this particular passage. She queried -in what she assumed to be a rhetorical sense- if I did not think that mediocracy for everyone was better than full potential for a few. When I informed her that, no, I found the idea repugnant, she became flustered and stormed out of the room. This is apparently the mentality in these times; instead of using the more gifted as a goal to strive towards, we simply drag the gifted back into the mediocracy of the masses.
Ultimus Eques fābulam dē democratiā narrat.
Now violently break from this nostalgic past with me as I reveal the author's surprising conclusion: This was a racist and classist time best left in the past. Yes, that is correct, according to this blogger-for-the-people, the study of Classics in preparation for university is purely intended to keep rich, white men in power. I know that when we peer into the past with our progressive, socio-centric goggles, they reveal that most universities were filled with rich, white men. They also reveal that most businesses, governments, and social clubs were also filled with rich, white men. According to one fervent Atheist with whom I have spoken, the Bible was even written by rich, white men -and no, she was not referring to the King James Translation-. Are we to conclude that Classical Studies are the cause of this social disgrace? Or are we able to perhaps realize that it was a different time with its obvious problems and frequently ignored strengths?
It is my humble opinion that anyone planning to enter the realm of higher education in the Western World needs to have, at the very least, a fairly decent grasp on the Classics. Love it or hate it, we live in the direct descendent of the Classical World. Our language, law, politics, math, science, religion, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and countless other fields come straight from the bowels of Attica and Latium. Why then, do we insist on crippling our children by neglecting to train them in the building blocks of education?
Some of it, I'm sure, is due to cultural guilt; the Western World has done awful things to Westerners and Non-Westerners alike. The appreciation of anything deemed "white" is a strict faux-pas in our progressive and open-minded society. But this cannot be the extent of it, we rarely sacrifice more than a nominal amount to maintain the illusion of political correctness. I believe that the driving force behind the decline of the Classics in our education is simply its difficulty; many people struggle with it and not everyone can stick with it. It is intellectual affirmative action; a product of the rampant democratization of every animate or inanimate object or concept that we encounter.
The unpopular fact is that not everyone belongs at university; it is a place for those entering academia, for doctors and lawyers. It should not become a tertiary school, trade school hybrid. There are two very serious consequences that arise from this transformation: We suffer an educational inflation and the overall quality of our education is significantly lowered.
I know very little about economics but I am aware that inflation is less than grand. The actual value of currency is reduced and, as I understand, it is closely associated with recession and depression. The same phenomenon is happening with education; we have minted too many degrees and their value is almost gone. High School diplomas have become ha'pennies and a four year degree is now our penny. Much like economic inflation, educational inflation also goes hand-in-hand with recession and depression. Children are informed by teachers, parents, counselors, and mentors that college is the only future. They go into debt gaining their degrees only to discover that all the choice jobs have been filled by applicants with either more experience or more education. The job market is filled with thousands of people with the same degree. The young men and women are now left with the choice to fill a menial position requiring no degree, or to gather more debt by furthering their education. This situation is just beginning to come to fruition with the so called "Generation Y". With the frenzied pace with which we continue to issue degrees, it is difficult to see the state of things improving anytime soon.
One of the easiest ways to create inflation is to print an ungodly amount of currency and freely distribute it to as many people as possible. This is what we have done with our educational system. University was once reserved for those elitist pigs that had the audacity to be gifted with a higher intellect and worked extremely hard to build upon that intellect. Apparently, Little Billy Desk-Chewer's mother felt that her son who, instead of improving his education, distracted everyone else from improving theirs', deserved a place at university as well. Now here's where it gets tricky, Little Billy Desk-Chewer is a moron; there is no conceivable way that he can pass the entrance exams. So what do we do? Obviously we lower the expectations of the colleges to Billy's level. (I may note that this has been a dramatization, events may not have occurred precisely as recounted above.) This is the nature of democracy; if everyone is to participate, we must insure that everyone is able to participate.
At one point, while working in a music store, I was reading the biography of Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm. A coworker walked up behind me as I was highlighting a particular passage:
"He also praised the great sense of freedom evident during his student years, and contrasted it with the later attempts of the state to regulate and control the university which had been founded in 1527 as Germany's first Protestant university. Government regulation of education, he believed, only promoted mediocracy."
My coworker was shocked and deeply offended that I had underlined this particular passage. She queried -in what she assumed to be a rhetorical sense- if I did not think that mediocracy for everyone was better than full potential for a few. When I informed her that, no, I found the idea repugnant, she became flustered and stormed out of the room. This is apparently the mentality in these times; instead of using the more gifted as a goal to strive towards, we simply drag the gifted back into the mediocracy of the masses.
Ultimus Eques fābulam dē democratiā narrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)