Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image


45 years ago Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon – but humanity has done naught since.

My earliest memory is of Neil Armstrong climbing out of the module and walking on the Moon – this I remember before I have retained memories of either of my parents or myself (I was four years old as I watched it).

It was one of the greatest achievements in human history (not just by Neil Armstrong – but by the whole team of people, both on the mission and back in Houston). Perhaps this being my earliest memory partly explains why I am so passionately pro American – and why I have been for so long filled with intense agony over the decline (in so many ways) of the United States.

But what has humanity done in space after the Moon landings – what have we achieved over this Biblical period of 40 (indeed 45) years?

Apart from sending out a few robot probes, what humanity has achieved in the universe since the Moon landings can be summed up in one word.


Operation protective edge

I expect to get some flak for this one, but ‘cest la vie.  The whole point of this media is to put up views you don’t see on the MSM.  So kindly address the points if you want to but save the ad hominem.

We are seeing violence on a grand scale in Gaza and yet there’s hardly a peep from our PM and the media prefer to talk about football.  So before we get into this, let’s be clear for the nth time, violence in pursuit of political goals is morally reprehensible.  It doesn’t matter whether you kill with a primitive explosive or a hi-tech bomb.  Same result, same morality, even if you claim it was an accident when the consequences are utterly obvious to everyone who cares to think.

So let’s get to the first claim that Israel is targeting Hamas.  True enough, the trouble is, they could kill every Hamas terrorist in Gaza with a large enough bomb (and the civilian population along with it), but at what point would this become wrong?  For me it’s when you knowing kill civilians in the attempt to kill others.  You might say “Well the RAF bombed cities in WW2” and indeed they did.  You may have your own views on that, but the UK was facing an existential struggle at the time, Israel (despite what they say) clearly isn’t.  Hamas can’t make Israel cease to exist.  They can create hell and kill scores of people but they can’t make Israel end.  This is just a lie.

Then there is this idea that this is a cycle of violence amongst equals.  It’s not.  The beginning of wisdom is to see something and call it by its proper name, not by what you are told to call it.  Thus if you see a man forcing a woman to have sex, don’t call it “Rough & Tumble” call it rape even if everyone on TV calls it R&T.  Israel has advanced jets and a navy which it uses to bomb one of the most densely populated areas in the world.  The Palestinians have no air force, no air defence, and no navy.  This is coloniser versus colonised and those living in Gaza have two choices.  Total compliance or resistance.  Under the current circumstances what would you do?

So what’s Netanyahu’s justification for all the killing?  Three kids kidnapped and killed, an evil crime, no excuses.

Terrorist criminals in South Belfast bombed pubs and kidnapped and murdered people.  Civilization is the process of law, not revenge; we didn’t send the RAF to demolish the Falls Road and kill over a hundred people because IRA members live amongst the civilian population.  Civilization is to arrest people, give them a right to a legal defence and make them answer for their crimes.  Savagery is to go on a revenge killing spree.  Which choice has Israel made?

Then there is the claim that Israel has to bomb because police work is impossible when the populace supports terrorists.  Large areas of Northern Ireland elected Sinn Fein, but the UK didn’t resort to mass killing or air strikes

Don’t tell me you take the so-called warnings seriously, by default that has to be a fig leaf.  If the objective is to kill Hamas leaders, you can’t honestly claim to say “Could all non-terrorists leave the building as it is about to be destroyed” and expect Abdul the terrorist murderer to remain in-situ.  Obvious and laughable.  I am embarrassed to hear people make the argument.

So please don’t tell me this is civilization, and you are on the side of the civilized.  If demolishing homes, mass arrests, illegal collective punishment over 1,000 people killed or injured by air strikes is civilization, what would be uncivilized, what would be savagery, revenge and murder?

Lastly, who thinks this will stop Hamas or weaken them?  Who thinks it will create more violence down the road?  Men whose positions depend on violence (on both sides) want the killing to go on.  So they go on killing.  This is not a solution, it’s just more killing.  The killing will only stop when one side decides to stop.

Rolf, Coulson, Freddie & Rebekah – Part 2

Well, I am sue most of you got it, but just in case anyone didn’t, there was a reason for the rather odd language in part one of this post. It would of course be illegal to ‘out’ victims in such cases and the women in question were not victims of Rolf et al, they were the supposed victims of the witches in Salem. It wasn’t the News of the World, it was the Malleus Maleficarum.

You can read the whole thing here.

The reason I put up Part 1 was to highlight the need for a statute of limitations at law. I would be simply unable to adequately defend myself from allegations made which related to conduct in the mid 1980’s when I started dating (adult) women. Now I don’t expect any to come forward and didn’t engage in any rum behaviours but were I to be asked by a lawyer “tell us about the night of the 16th of March 1986” I simply couldn’t. I could mount no adequate defence.

Nor am I suggesting that anyone found guilty is not, I simply remember the exchange between Roper and More

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

I am so sorry for the victims of abuse, and we need to give kids time to mature into adults, but there has to be a limit of some kind, otherwise qui tacet consentire videtur

After the passage of enough time anyway.

Rolf, Coulson, Freddie & Rebekah

The various media and molestation trials must be a cause for concern.

After extensive research, I can now bring you the names of some of the victims of the sexual predators the recent prosecutions.

The various celebrity paedophiles were accused and arrested for allegedly afflicting Betty Parris, Abigail Williams, 12-year-old Ann Putnam, Jr., Elizabeth Hubbard, Sarah Good and Sarah Osborne. The girls complained of being pinched and pricked . A doctor could find no physical evidence but other young women began to exhibit similar behaviours.

Meanwhile stories of enchantment from The News of the World about sexual encounters swaying the minds of men, and fortune telling were said to stimulate the imaginations of young girls and made Coulson an obvious target of accusation Not even in death were the accused granted peace or respect,

Some were less inclined to believe the biological explanations, preferring instead to explore motivations such as jealousy, spite, and a need for attention to explain behaviour that they contend was simply acting or the pursuit of compensation

Our foreign policy shambles

Foreign policy on Iraq and Syria is a total car crash.  This tends to be what happens when you go hurtling off on half-baked, wildly optimistic adventurism.

If you think back to the heady days of 2003, Tony Blair, he of the whiter than white government was in office.  He told us Saddam was dangerous and was developing nukes and other WMD, Brits were 45 minutes from doom and all.  The vile Ba’athist regime of Saddam said “no, we don’t have any”  But would you trust a murdering sociopathic liar?

I am ashamed to say, I did believe the JIC report (the last time I ever did) but had a problem with the strategy.  As the Western tanks rolled into Baghdad, I thought “surely Saddam HAS to fire the WMD’s” that after all is their strategic role.  We were told he was ‘warned’ not to.  But given that we had already declared war, I wasn’t sure how meaningful that was.

Total chaos and death followed the overthrow of Saddam, not the enlightened democracy we were promised.  A few years, much cash and many deaths later, our troops withdrew from Basra – defeated.*

The Iraqis voted on entirely sectarian lines and the minority Sunnis were booted out of power, something they had enjoyed for nearly 1300 years.  This pissed off the Saudis and Qataris, but overjoyed Iran.  Western intervention utterly destroyed the Iraqi army and the Taliban as a serious military force in Afghanistan making Iran the regional geo-political power:  now it had gifted them a friendly government next door.

Meanwhile in Syria, intelligence agencies from the West and arms dealers from Saudi Arabia concluded that de-stabilising the Assad regime might isolate Iran making them easier to deal with.  So merry hell was let lose, as all manner of unknown anti-Assad groups were armed and funded.  After all, it wasn’t like we’d just had experience of the total fucking carnage that follows when you de-stabilise and attempt to kick out a Ba’athist regime (or indeed Gaddafi in Libya).  The Russians thought this a very bad idea and gave Assad some advanced anti-aircraft and anti-shipping missiles.  This made western intervention tricky.  Dead soldiers are one thing, you don’t see the photos, but crashed planes or sinking ships – bad media.

In August of 2013, 272 MP’s thought the very best course of action was to go to Syria and start killing yet more people, ideally people loyal to Assad.  285 thought it a bad idea and by a majority of just 13, we did not take the field alongside ISIS fighters – sic.  (More on them in a moment).

Having turned Syria into a hellish bloodbath, the always admirable Saudis** started funding a group of Sunni co-religionists called the Independent state of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  They set about butchering people they regarded as apostates.  This makes about as much sense as having a murderous dispute about the names of Santa’s elves, so clearly these are the people to give nearly a billion dollars and weapons to.

ISIS then took on the Iraqi army.  You will recall we stayed in Iraq for years training this elite fighting force.  This was the justification du jour when it became obvious there were no WMD’s.  Predictably enough, the Iraqi army lasted about as long as the Afghan national army will when the Taliban want to take over again.

So now we had a problem, our nearly allies in Syria were being jolly naughty chaps in Iraq, so should we bomb them or deploy?  Immediate engagement in Iraq is about as welcome as a cup of cold sick, so it is left to the Iraqis to re-supply planes from … Russia.  Yep, in just a few days, Russian planes will be blowing ISIS to hell apparently.  Of course you can’t just buy a modern jet fighter, jump in and fly it, so I guess the pilots must also be Russian?  Perhaps NickM could advise?

If this works, the Iraqi government will say a big thanks to Vladimir Putin.

The Iranians meanwhile have had a huge sense of schadenfreude.  Western governments, notably the USA, after calling them the empire of evil etc. for twenty years, now go cap in hand for help with ISIS.

Meanwhile Obama now wants to spend $500 Million to train and equip ‘moderate’ Islamic murderers in Syria (but not ISIS, oh no!) because it’s not like we have recent experience of that type of adventure being utterly infiltrated by fundamentalists and rendered pointless.  Even if you could identify moderates (whatever that means) how can you propose this shit with a straight face?  But hey, it will mean more debt slavery for our kids and still more killing.

Never fear, the very worst is yet to come.

Assume Maliki’s government in Iraq is real struggling and the Iranians get him to ask for formal military assistance.  The Iranians can then send their powerful army to occupy the southern oilfields and basically set-up Arabistan in the South.  This gives total control of Iranian and Iraqi oil to Tehran and if they can get an invite to go in, it wouldn’t even be something the UN could scream about very much.

And what the hell would we do then?  Appeal to our friends the Saudis, go back in and kill yet more people, spend more money we don’t have?

Yep, all things considered after all the murder and money, all the shattered lives and fatherless children, all the chaos, this is what our elite leaders have delivered.

Remind me again why we need these murderous cunts?

Let’s look at the stats

I seem to have run into some flak recently, so I thought I would test some of the ideas against the historical record. The Rand corporation published “How Terrorist Groups End-Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida” by Seth G. Jones, Martin C. Libicki.
They examined 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006. They found that they ended for two major reasons:
1. members decided to adopt non-violent tactics and join the political process (43 percent of the time), or
2. local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members of the group (40 percent).
Military force has rarely been the primary reason how terrorist groups have ended (10 percent), and few groups have ever achieved victory (7 percent).
In testimony to congress they noted “When a terrorist group becomes involved in an insurgency, it does not end easily. Nearly 50 percent of the time, groups ended by negotiating a settlement with the government; 25 percent of the time, they achieved victory; and 19 percent of the time, military forces defeated them.
So history suggests that the military option has less than a 1 in 5 chance of success, whereas getting them to join the political process or arresting/killing key members of the group as I suggest elsewhere, has a better than 4 in 5 chance of success.
It maybe worth repeating, I don’t support Hamas murder anymore than Israeli murder. I just see beyond the “Jews good, Muslims bad” meme. The extremists (and their apologists) on both sides are just murderers or accessories.

Culture = Food.

This is a post I have been thinking of for a while. Endivio’s comments on another post recently brought it back to mind.

Two countries I have visited fairly recently are Poland and Turkey. The first is a secular majority Catholic state, the second a secular* majority Muslim state.

So in what way do they differ? Obviously they have different histories and cultures driven by centuries but what really struck me is food. Now, at least in Western Turkey (I don’t know about the sticks) getting a bit of booze is easy and the same can of course be said for Poland. But meat is different. Meat in Poland is almost synonymous with pig. You don’t get much pig in Turkey. Indeed I saw one restaurant that served pig in Istanbul (it was a Spanish gaff). Just one. Once when picked up from Krakow Airport we had to dodge a deer on the road. I asked if they ate ‘em. “Er… not really” came the reply. When you consider in dear old Blighty venison is considered a king of meats this seemed odd. The place was apparently wick with dear but did you see it on a menu? Is there any particularly compelling reason meat in Turkey almost invariably means lamb? It is culture and tradition and cooking what your mam made. Women walk the streets of Istanbul in mini-skirts** sitting outside cafes and bars and drinking Efes Beer***. So hijab is out the window for many (by no means all) Turkish women as does going out for a pint but pig is off the menu.

Whereas in Poland if there ain’t pig involved it ain’t dinner. I have to say Polish beer is better than Turkish but Czech beer is most excellent. It is an odd thing. The persistence in culture of food. It seems to last longer than anything I can think of.

And it exists within countries. I am I think peculiar in living in the same house from birth to going to university – basically from 0-19. At Nottingham University I met southerners. They would talk about Christmas dinner with bread sauce. Never heard of it but everyone from south of the Watford Gap swore by it. I’m still not entirely clear what it is. Food is culture and a Turk might relax with a beer with her hair out but offer her a ham sandwich and you’ll get a funny look. Offer a Pole some venison and ditto. Offer me bread sauce and much the same. Food is something we tend to stick with perhaps more than any other religious or cultural aspect of life. As a Brit who lives with a staggering diversity of food (thank you Empire!) I find this odd. Perhaps foreign folk find our curry habit odd. Well, apart from South Asians obviously.

If I might push the boat out food defines us more than almost anything. My wife and I have a lot of cook books and a lot of those (most) name a country or area on the front and spine. You don’t get that with novels.

OK, I’m off to write as shopping list**** for we are having Mexican tonight.

*Though Mr Erdogan seems to doing his level best to fuck this up.

**Should I even mention what they wear in the “Russian Quarter” – if you have seen movies from the ’80s you’ll know. And it is all priced in Turkish lira and rouble.

***Remarkably similar to US mass-made lager. Yes I know there is good American beer but mainly you get stuff like Coors and I used to drink that but now I am older Budweiser. Terrible joke, sorry.

****Am I th only one who thinks of that as a Chopin Liszt? That’s an even worse joke.

Sometimes a great Notion…

Just substitute England for Irene in the song below would you? Sheesh!

Well it’s a great bit of music to bow out on eh?

Cartoon of the Week.

You’re about to get a very painful lesson in Englishness…

D Day

In response to RAB

As a fifteen year old in Australia I vividly remember the excitement of ‘D’ day as the reports came in.

I had not yet met my husband, Cats father, who as an Aussie gave 6 years of his young life in the fight with the Empire – having lied about his age in order to enlist, and who passed away 40 years ago as a result of his war service.

I know this attitude is a tad politically incorrect these days, but I will always proclaim my pride in my British heritage as both sets of my grandparents migrated to the “Lucky Country”.

Publish or be damned

I know our host isn’t crazy on the use of traditional English profanity, but there are times when only certain words will do.  And it’s the site of these two murderous evil cunts that has provoked my need for anti-emetic mediation.

It seems that the Chilcot report into the Iraq war won’t now be able to reference source material, namely the letters between Bush and Blair.  This wouldn’t pass muster in an A-level essay.  Sorry teacher, I can’t quote my sources but I will give you the gist.  Sorry sonny you get an F.  Quote your references or don’t expect to be taken seriously.

But it seems that Sir Jeremy Heywood the cabinet secretary and Sir John Chilcot the inquiry chairman, think this is okay when investigating a murderous and divisive conflict that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of pounds.   Well sorry boys but it fucking well isn’t.

Don’t you remember Tony Blair telling us all if we had nothing to hide we had nothing to fear?  If he’s allowed to look at our every e-mail and phone call surely we (who paid for the whole thing) should be able to see life and death decisions?

If the letters exonerate Bush and Blair you must publish to remove this stain on their honour. If they condemn them, you MUST publish.

If Heywood won’t release them, then resign from the inquiry, don’t put your name to a modern day Widgery report.  Have some fucking balls.   

Inflation is THE deadly threat

I have to admit, I was expecting much more serious inflation by now. That’s not to say there hasn’t been inflation in some sectors. Equity prices seem entirely detached from reality and property prices in London and the South East are unhinged, but I was figuring on a more widespread issue. Some of the inflation is hidden as the quality of products goes down or the quantity is reduced. Supermarkets are notorious for this. But I was thinking it would be a more significant issue and I was most certainly thinking central bank interest rates would have been raised by now.

To some extent, this is pre-2008 conventional thinking. The fact is, when the government carries a giant debt load, even if much of it is long-term debt (so less immediately affected by interest rate spikes), it simply can’t afford interest rates at 6% or 7%. So we may expect the Bank of England to hang on to low rates for as long as possible. They will hang it out until the case for a rise is screamingly unanswerable and finally, grudgingly raise rates. But there are some deflationary pressures to and this is where it gets a bit complex.

Fractional reserve banking has the effect of creating money via leverage. For example, if you put £10,000 in the bank on deposit* the bank can lend this cash to a business owner. He perhaps buys a new machine with the cash, and the guy who sold the machine, gets the £10K. He puts it right back in the bank to be loaned again. This increases the de facto supply of money and it has an inflationary effect as more money chases the same amount of goods until supply can react. The reverse is also true. When banks look to de-leverage, unwind their positions, call in loans etc., this reduced the supply of money and it also reduced upward pressure on prices.

Thus as the US and UK governments were printing money like crazy, banks were deleveraging and not creating many new loans and this rather muted the inflationary effect. So what happens next?

Banks are ultimately in the business of loaning money. They like lending to sovereign governments** because you can be more or less sure you will be re-paid, at least in nominal terms. However, they know you can’t just loan to the government, because someone has to create wealth and it’s not the boys in Whitehall or Washington who do this, whatever they may claim. So, when banks start serious lending again, this increases the money supply as above. Also, the US and UK governments (and many others) have structural*** budget deficits. At some point we may see serious and sustained sovereign bond auction failures (this is when the government can’t sell their own debt instruments). At that point, they will be straight back to the only trick left in the play book, quantitative easing****

And that’s when two drivers both point the same way, i.e. towards the inflationary high road. The government won’t care too much about this at the start. They rely on inflation as a crypto tax to reduce their currently unpayable national debts. But a little bit of inflation is like a small fire – hard to control and something which can very easily become a conflagration.

Certainly for the US dollar, the world reserve currency status could be over in an inflationary scenario. When countries no longer buy oil or settle international debts in US dollars, the value must collapse and it perhaps becomes a local currency like the Mexican Peso or the Turkish Lira. Basically junk to settle small local bills but not for the storage of wealth or any kind of international trade.

Meanwhile back in the US/UK and others, the latest round of QE funds government spending but is otherwise ravaging the economy. Imports become crazy expensive as the local currency collapse continues and that’s when the various governments trot off to the IMF and ask for something called special drawing rights. These are perhaps the most widely misunderstood international financial instruments, but understanding them is critical to knowing what comes next.

When national currencies are so debased (as they are increasingly being) people look to other stores of wealth as a medium of exchange. I think SDRs will become the medium of international trade and I submit, that you can entirely forget about national governments or national sovereignty as and when this happens. Just as the Southern Europeans are finding out now, when someone else controls your money, you are their bitch. And when SDRs establish themselves, we will all be the bitches of the IMF.

* Fucking misnomer if ever there was one, it’s not a deposit, it’s a loan.

** This term excludes Greece, Spain Italy etc. because when you let someone else say what your legal tender is, you cease to be sovereign. Thus the Club Med countries are just rent-boys for the Germans these days.

*** A cyclical deficit is when you spend more than you get in tax temporarily, because of a recession which depresses tax income; a structural deficit is when you spend more than you get in tax regardless of how the economy performs.

**** There is one other trick, financial repression, whereby all private pensions, or privately held gold etc. would be stolen by the government, they would call it nationalisation or something of that nature, but it’s just stealing. But this is finite and wildly unpopular amongst those being looted whereas QE seems (but isn’t) victimless.

There are too many black players in the premiership

No, no, calm down, I don’t really think that. It’s just that, so far as I ca tell, that is the logical inference of the left’s position on equal representation.
I was listening to Richard Bacon on Radio 5 without anti-emetics today, (always risky). They were interviewing some woman TV/film director complaining about the lack of women TV/film directors. Now I couldn’t care two hoots about this, but if you think about the proposition, it goes as follows.
“We need more women directors, so by implication, we need fewer men. We need more black people in the police force, so by implication, whites are over-represented” etc.
I really don’t get this argument. Not every sphere of life needs to be an exact facsimile of the gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation of the wider population.
And so to football. We hear that Asians are under-represented in the English premiership and mathematically, as a proportion of the wider population, I can believe that. There are very good physical and cultural reasons for this. Sikhs may prefer cricket and not value football particularly for example which may explain why Monty Panesar is a spin bowler not a centre forward.  But if some cultures, ethnicities, sexualities etc are under-represented, doesn’t it follow mathematically, that some ethnicities etc are over-represented.
So whereas our friends on the left are happy to bang the drum for under-representation, you wouldn’t find one following the policy to its logical conclusion, i.e. too many black players in the premiership. And this fellow Kitty-counters I submit, this “fair representation” stuff is intellectually empty nonsense.

Maybe it’s the anarchist in me…


..but I love cultural subversion.  Case in point, this poster I recently saw at Waterloo station in London.  As you may be able to tell, someone has taken a marker-pen to the advert and that’s what got me interested.

The rest of the poster is the usual “blame big business for everything” nonsense you get from leftie charities these days. 

They start by suggesting that yes, in fact her own government should but her a mosquito net, “the answer is of course a”

The fuck it is.  The poster seems to imply she lives in some African shit-box country and if you take that premise on face value, it’s probably has some Kleptocratic murderous ‘government’ that looted her parents to penury in the first place.  So really the answer is ‘of course’ (d) her parents, but they can’t because of said tax/looting/murder.

Resolutely ignoring reality, Christian Aid go onto claim that these African countries are only poor because multi-nationals “don’t pay their taxes”  Yep, nothing to do with the failure to respect property rights at all.

Now call me cynical, but I’m guessing pretty much all this cash the multi-national companies avoid handing over would go on private jets, Swiss homes, offshore bank accounts, any number of hookers and wives, and of course private militaries to keep the proles in line; little if any would be spent on life saving mosquito nets.

And I’m not even assuming the poor lass is a Tutsi or received the tender attentions of the fifth brigade in Matabeleland.  I’m guessing handing out mosquito nets wasn’t first on the agenda for the governments of Rwanda or Zimbabwe.

So really, calling for murderous gangsters who happen to have grabbed power in Africa to be given more cash is just about the worst thing you could do.

So I’m sorry Christian Aid, but No, I won’t be joining your campaign.  Not until you recognise the real problem, it’s not tax evasion, its government. 

PS Don’t even start me on whether it might even be better to spray the “ecological wetlands” where the mosquitos breed with DDT and eradicate the bastards in the first place

Glenn Beck: Common Core and Education [and Certain Corps., and Progressivism]

A very good Glenn Beck video, uploaded 4/2013. Well worth the 45 minutes. Note well, at 21:26:

I’m not an anti-corporation guy!

But … the thrust of this “education” project is to instill in children anti-capitalist, pro-communistic ideas … to demolish all privacy of both the children and their family members … and to make of them guinea pigs whose bodily, physiological, biochemical states are studied via sensors attached to them. (If this sounds hyper-sensationalized, see the bit starting around 28:30 or a bit past, beginning with Dr. Gary Thompson, of the Early Life Child Psychology and Education Center. However, I have done no research at all on Dr. Thompson nor the Center beyond doing the search to get the link. FWIW, the search turns up results from the Better Business Bureau.)

There is a most interesting article by the by the former award-winning NYC-public-schoolteacher John Taylor Gatto, entitled “The Public School Nightmare,” which is a thorough-going indictment of American “education” and the Prussian system that the early Progressives like Horace Mann and, later, John Dewey foisted off on us. Please read! Excerpts:

When Frederich Froebel, the inventor of kindergarten in 19th century Germany, fashioned his idea he did not have a “garden for children” in mind, but a metaphor of teachers as gardeners and children as the vegetables. Kindergarten was created to be a way to break the influence of mothers on their children. I note with interest the growth of daycare in the US and the repeated urgings to extend school downward to include 4-year-olds.

. . .

A movement as visibly destructive to individuality, family and community as government-system schooling has been might be expected to collapse in the face of its dismal record, coupled with an increasingly aggressive shake down of the taxpayer, but this has not happened. The explanation is largely found in the transformation of schooling from a simple service to families and towns to an enormous, centralized corporate enterprise.

While this development has had a markedly adverse effect on people and on our democratic traditions, it has made schooling the single largest employer in the United States, and the largest grantor of contracts next to the Defense Department.

[ SNIP ]

In the video below, Mr. Beck points out the Shelob-like Department of Education.

(Vouchers are not, in fact, a good idea, except insofar as they might get parents to thinking about where their children might actually get some decent education. This is the gradualist approach, if going cold-turkey is politically impossible. Along these same lines, I read recently that the Charter Schools movement is also turning out to hurt private schooling, since the Charter Schools are still “free,” meaning payed-for by the taxpayer, hence still under the governmental thumb. Whether the alleged Corporate/Charter-school Corruption in the South — Louisiana? I forget exactly — actually occurred I can’t say, but the temptation and possibility are surely there.)

%d bloggers like this: