27 February 2007

Compulsory screening

Terrifying legislation is constantly proposed and my philosophy department remains unfinanced and hamstrung. Appallingly, it is proposed that, since a high proportion of the population is assured (whether they work or not) of an income at other people’s expense sufficient to enable them to eat and drink themselves into a state of ill-health, which prevents them from making any contribution by way of taxation towards the upkeep of themselves or towards interference with the lives of others, there should therefore be compulsory screening of all for high cholesterol at 5-year intervals and, presumably, enforced ‘treatment’ (torture) by the iniquitous socially appointed ‘medical’ sadists.

Now it is bad enough that access to pharmaceuticals and information is blocked to the extent it is by the totally immoral terms on which the medical Mafia operates, in complete violation of the basic moral principle, but at least a conscientious objector such as myself is able to avoid being forced into an abusive relationship with any doctor by forgoing whatever could only be obtained with its permission. This is bad enough, and one regrets also that one continues to be taxed (have one’s freedom confiscated) so that others who are too unintelligent to object can be subjected to torture and abuse.

But to be forced into an abusive contact with the medical Mafia against one’s will is horrific beyond measure. I have already said that this is no longer a country where it is possible to live except under protest. The protests which should be being expressed by the philosophy department of my crushed and downtrodden independent university are ignored and suppressed, and that should not be so.

22 February 2007

Suppressed drive turns into aggression

As I said recently, children are brought up in such a way that compliance with social demands, and identification with the rewards to be derived from membership of social groups, are seen as good, and any individual drive is bad, since it is likely to lead to social disapproval and punishment.

So the individual represses his individualistic drives and cravings, but this leads to anger and resentment, which is also regarded as bad, and he has to try to pretend he does not have such feelings. But he can sublimate or redirect them into a socially approvable form, by joining with society in its disapproval of those who express their drives in ways considered morally wrong.

E.g. people with high IQs who emerge from their state-funded education as demoralised criminals, and with no way of using their drives to succeed in life, are not angry at the oppressive education which has got them into this position, although they quarrelled with their teachers and committed acts of vandalism on school buildings. Instead they are angry at bank managers and property owners and their minds run on ways of asserting themselves by doing something really painful and damaging to such people, such as putting lighted papers through the letterboxes of those who annoy them in any way, in the hope of burning down their house.

Or they may become agents of the collective, such as teachers, doctors or social workers, and interfere in the lives of other people against their will.

Boys are more likely to suffer from repressed anger and resentment than are girls, who usually cotton on sooner to the possibility of using social position as an aid to oppressing other people, and reconcile themselves from an early age to seeing the restriction of the liberty of other people as the only form of self-assertion to be aimed at.

A form of genocide

Communist/socialist revolutions are always aimed at reducing the presence in the population of ‘upper class’ or high IQ genes. The genocide that is going on in this country now is relatively concealed and results from the inception of the Welfare State, better called the Oppressive State, which at the time was hailed by many as ‘the bloodless revolution’. So considering more open forms of genocide enables one to see more clearly what is really going on here and now.

A high IQ or aristocratic ancestry is correlated with both cultural and intellectual interests and with financial and managerial success; populations that achieved too much freedom of action for themselves were persecuted on both counts. Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China killed landlords and intellectuals. In Cambodia, similarly, the communists killed the ‘middle class’. The French Revolution sent aristocrats to the guillotine. The Nazis (National Socialists) killed Jews, who were commercially successful, had strong family solidarity and, statistically, above-average IQs. That means that although the IQ bell curve for German Jews and German non-Jews overlapped to a large extent in the middle regions, the population of people with remarkably high IQs, say over 160, was likely to contain a considerably higher proportion of Jews than of non-Jews. This corresponded to the social observation that the Jewish representation was conspicuous among such people as successful bankers, leading intellectuals, and scientific inventors.

The Holocaust must have had a significant effect on the IQ bell curve for Germany, shifting it downwards. A similar effect is being produced more gradually in this country by covert long-term policies. It is made more difficult for those at the upper end of the IQ range to achieve tolerable living conditions, so they reproduce more slowly. The ‘highly educated’, as they are euphemistically called, have smaller than average families. At the same time, the dysfunctional are given every inducement to reproduce freely, and every generation increases the population of handicapped people, requiring to be supported and subjected to medical treatment throughout their lives at the expense of functional taxpayers.

How many generations will it take, or has it already taken, for this to produce a downward shift in the IQ bell curve as perceptible as that created by the mass murder of millions of Jews in Nazi Germany? Do not overlook the power of geometric compounding.

20 February 2007

"Curing" the homeless

Herbert Spencer was a prestigious Victorian philosopher, now out of fashion. According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ‘Spencer enjoyed immense popularity in his own time, especially in America. ... Sinking in esteem by the century’s end to hitherto unimagined depths, Spencer is today remembered primarily as the enthusiast for extreme laissez-faire or Social Dawinism...’ (from article about Herbert Spencer by Michael Ruse).

Herbert Spencer was opposed to state interventionism and also to female suffrage, on the grounds that women would be too likely to support paternalistic (or interventionist) policies.

Personally, I regard the basic moral principle as being that one should refrain from imposing one’s own evaluations and interpretations on other people, but leave them as free as possible to make their own best guess in view of the existential uncertainty. The modern, and totally different, principle, appears to be that the individual should be willing to sacrifice his own interests in order to contribute to the greatest good of the greatest number of people. I find this horrifying.

An article by John Bird in the Mail on Sunday of 18 February, under the headline ‘Lock up the homeless’, is headed, in large letters, ‘No one knows more about the homeless than the founder of The Big Issue. In a tough and provocative article, he argues that the present policy is useless and the only "cure" for most is compulsory treatment in mental hospitals’.

In the article, the author declares: ‘The way the Government ... "treats" this problem is just plain wrong. The system isn’t curing anything. ... the illness that caused the crisis in the first place is still there, untouched and untreated. What nobody wants to acknowledge is that 90 per cent of people in and around homelessness have drink and drug problems. ... It is addictive behaviour and the only way to tackle it and stand any chance of "curing" the homeless is to treat it as the mental problem it is. Addiction doesn’t fall under the remit of the 1983 Mental Health Act. [An oppressive and intrinsically immoral Act, by the way.] But it should.’

John Bird refers to the cases of two individuals.

Jim was somebody I knew well. He died last year from alcohol abuse, having been slowly rotted by the system that, nominally at least, kept him out of homelessness for 25 years. He teetered on the edge of society, there to be a pain to the hard-working people he lived among. ... The taxpayers paid for Jim to drink himself to death because nobody would accept that his addiction was a state of mental illness.

Bill is in a similar situation. He is a walking disaster. Mentally unstable, a nuisance to himself and others. He has been housed for five years but still lives the life of a homeless person. He simply no longer sleeps rough. His flat is full of last week’s takeaway wrappings. Sometimes he remembers to charge up his electric key. Most times he is in the dark. He lived in a hostel for a while and had to behave. But he was never 'cured'. And so, when he was rehoused, his existence was always going to be that of a sustained victim. He never eats properly or sleeps through the night, is jobless and unemployable. But, as far as some homeless agencies are concerned, he’s been ‘successfully rehoused’. It just shows how much the system masks the problem — to the tune of an estimated £60,000 a year in Bill’s case.

He who pays the piper calls the tune, but the piper is paid with freedom confiscated from taxpayers, thus reducing their ability to build up enough capital to do what they would find most rewarding, which might include having children and educating them. If it costs £60,000 a year to keep a homeless person physically alive, that is about as much as it costs to send six boys to Eton. So the freedom of the taxpaying population is being reduced by that amount for every homeless person it ‘successfully rehouses’.

If the Government had not wished to keep Jim, and others like him, alive at the taxpayers’ expense, these homeless people would have drunk themselves to death more quickly, and the population of drifting homeless would not have become so offensive to the non-homeless population as to justify incarcerating them in the power of the iniquitous medical Mafia, which will not hesitate to deprive them of their mental, as well as physical, liberty by the enforced administration of mind-altering drugs.

‘Colonialism’, the imposition of your own standards on a subject population, is in other contexts disapproved of. You could say that John Bird’s article is expressing 'lifestyle colonialism'. If your subjects do not bring themselves into conformity with your ideas of an approvable lifestyle — however much at variance with their own culture it may be — you consider yourself justified in bringing them into line, by whatever sanctions you see fit.

19 February 2007

Pussyfooting about compulsory education

Exceedingly pussyfooting criticism of compulsory education, from an article by Professor Dennis O’Keefe, published by the Libertarian Alliance:
As elementary education got going in the late nineteenth century, before and after compulsion, and up to the Second World War, the curve of British crime fell. With the huge growth of secondary, tertiary and further education since then, it has all rocketed back to square one. One flinches from drawing mechanistic associations, but the contingent growth of anti-social activity side by side with the parallel expansion of mass schooling raise questions too obvious to be ducked. (from ‘Compulsory Education: An Oxymoron of Modernity’)
Why should one ‘flinch from drawing mechanistic associations’? It is clear enough that compulsory education, in this day and age, is aimed at producing demoralised criminals. Nor is it the case that only secondary and tertiary education produce them. As the concepts of compulsory and state education have developed, so also has the ideology that is applied at all levels.

When, recently, I and my associates were resident in East London, we found that waiting for a train at a railway station exposed one to being the target of rocks thrown by children of primary school age, something that was unheard of when I lived in East London soon after the inception of the Welfare (or Oppressive) State. Although even then the ideology was far enough advanced to be severely damaging to the education of a person of exceptional drive and ability.

If I gave a seminar in Oxford on this topic, nobody would come, because I have no academic position or social status. This results from the damage inflicted on my life by the post-war educational and academic systems.

Middle class students

Middle-class students [euphemism for: those with above-average IQs] emerged as the hardest-hit by rising tuition fees as universities warned of further increases. Official figures showed demand for college places hitting record levels despite the introduction of £3,000 a year ‘top up’ fees last September. But the increase was lowest among youngsters from better-off families — the students who miss out on grants and most of the bursaries designed to cancel out the fee increase for the poorest students.

Leading universities are already pressing for the limit on fees to be raised still further within two years — it is due for a review in 2009. They say tuition fees would have to double or even triple to cover the cost of degree courses. (Daily Mail 15 February 2007)
My comments

It is a long-standing policy of modern society to favour the poorest students (poorest in both senses, since high IQ and autonomous drive are correlated with having successful or ‘middle-class’ parents). This follows from the fact that the primary objective of modern society is to destroy exceptional individuals, who would be likely to be the most successful were they not discriminated against.

This is really a form of genocide, more concealed than that of the Nazi holocaust, since its objective is to reduce the presence in the population of representatives of ‘superior’ gene pools.

But making entry to ‘higher education’ difficult for those with above-average IQs could be a blessing in disguise for those who can overcome their social conditioning sufficiently to realise this. Going to university no longer has any point, and I would not recommend it to anyone without consideration of the special factors that may be present in their case.

This place (Oxford Forum) is a Noah’s Ark, and those who perceive the hopelessness of a normal career, taxed from cradle to grave, followed by living on a pension that is ‘withering on the vine’ as well as being means-tested, should think about coming to join my incipient independent university cum business consortium.

15 February 2007

The quality of life of British children

"Devastating UNICEF report blames family breakdown for giving British children the worst quality of life in the affluent West."

(Front page headline from Daily Mail 14 February 2007.)

My comments

I blame the Welfare State, and the interventionist socialist ideology behind it, for giving British children (and many adults, including me) a terrible quality of life. And what is ‘affluent’ supposed to mean, when the vast majority of the population is sending their children to state schools, and exposing their children and themselves to the tender mercies of the NHS?

Aphorism of the month (February)

La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure

... is as true today as ever it was. Only now ‘le plus fort’ is always the agent of the collective.

(from the forthcoming book The Corpse and the Kingdom)

14 February 2007

Schopenhauer and friendship

This is what Schopenhauer says about friendship:
In many cases, there is a grain of true and genuine friendship in the relation of man to man, though generally, of course, some secret personal interest is at the bottom of them - some one among the many forms that selfishness can take. But in a world where all is imperfect, this grain of true feeling is such an ennobling influence that it gives some warrant for calling those relations by the name of friendship, for they stand far above the ordinary friendships that prevail amongst mankind. The latter are so constituted that, were you to hear how your dear friends speak of you behind your back, you would never say another word to them.

Apart from the case where it would be a real help to you if your friend were to make some great sacrifice to serve you, there is no better means of testing the genuineness of his feelings than the way in which he receives the news of a misfortune that has just happened to you. At that moment the expression of his features will either show that his one thought is that of true and sincere sympathy for you; or else the absolute composure of his countenance, or the passing trace of something other than sympathy, will confirm the well-known maxim of La Rochefoucauld: “Dans l'adversité de nos meilleurs amis, nous trouvons toujours quelque chose qui ne nous deplaît pas.” Indeed, at such a moment, the ordinary so-called friend will find it hard to suppress the signs of a slight smile of pleasure. There are few ways by which you can make more certain of putting people into a good humour than by telling them of some trouble that has recently befallen you, or by unreservedly disclosing some personal weakness of yours. How characteristic this is of humanity!

It is not only that people look pleased at one's misfortunes, they may sometimes be observed to look dismayed at one's good fortune.

I was once in receipt of some financial support for a period of seven years. During this period I moved into a larger house. Speculation among my friends and well-wishers may well have arisen that I would not be able to maintain myself, along with my various colleagues, in this more desirable house once the financial support came to an end. One of these colleagues paid a social call on a Professor and his wife. "And what will you do when your grant comes to an end?" the wife enquired, operating under cover of the social convention which enables people to enquire into your affairs on the assumption that their intentions are benevolent. "Oh, we will go on living in the same house," my colleague replied, and told me afterwards how the face of the Professor's wife dropped with surprise and regret. One may add, of course, that the Professor's wife was living in a more than comparable lifestyle to any we had ever enjoyed, and with far greater social status and security, so that her reaction was not due to our continuing to have some advantage which she did not have herself.

08 February 2007

Esther Rantzen and the medical profession

Extracts from an article by Esther Rantzen
about her daughter suffering from ME

When I saw my once active, energetic daughter walking heavily upstairs, and struggling to get off a sofa, at first I put it down to teenage lethargy. Now I know better, I can date the onset of the fatigue. It was triggered by a bout of glandular fever in 1992 when Emily was 14 — a common enough illness in young people, but she never fully recovered. She went back to school after a week or two, but from then on she was overcome with a tiredness that sent her back to sleep in the library or at the back of the class. She went to the school nurse, who ‘counselled’ her, mainly about the depressing effect of my career on her emotional health. Emily argued with the nurse, and never told me. I would have left my job in television instantly if Emily or I had thought the school nurse was right, but this didn’t look like emotional depression to us.

During the next two years she had longer and longer periods off school and in bed, missing out on two thirds of her education, but she still managed to catch up on her own so that her grades at GCSE were a perfect clutch of A-stars. Once again, looking back, I realise that effort was the last straw. The next term she collapsed, and left school permanently. At this point our GP referred her to a neurologist, thank heavens. Had we been referred to a psychiatrist, as many ME patients are, I might have come under suspicion of abusing her, been diagnosed with Munchausen by Proxy, and told that I was deliberately causing my daughter’s illness myself.

It may sound far-fetched, but I have met families to whom that had happened, and mothers who not only had the anxiety and distress of a child’s illness to deal with but the hideous experience of having to defend themselves against accusations of abuse. When a child’s illness baffles the medical profession they sometimes look around for someone to blame, and mum is often the nearest and easiest target. I have campaigned on behalf of parents and children who suddenly find a care order slapped on their sick child. I’ve heard of terrible scenes when screaming children were torn from their parents’ arms and locked in closed psychiatric wards. I know of one father who went to prison rather than allow that to happen to his son.

Luckily our consultant neurologist was one of the few at that time — this was 12 years ago — who recognised ME as a genuine illness, and told us that Emily was a classic case. There wasn’t much he could do, and he was quite honest about that. He told us that nobody knows what causes ME or how to cure it. (Daily Mail, 6 February 2007)

My comments

This article provides a vivid picture of the parlous position of those who are in any way above average in modern egalitarian Britain. Esther Rantzen is not overtly critical of this state of affairs; she had obtained a way of using her ability to gain reward and attention from the society around her precisely by identifying with socialist ideology and becoming a prominent promoter of interventionist ideas.

And yet she describes a state of affairs in which it is dangerous for a middle-class parent to consult a doctor about their child. They are liable to be blamed and have a psychiatric interpretation placed upon them by doctors who are working-class by upbringing and have lower IQs than their own. Their children can be taken away from them at the drop of a hat and they or their children may be incarcerated in prisons or mental institutions. This is the modern form of class warfare.

And consider the ‘counselling’ given by the school nurse, quite likely also a person of working class background and low IQ. The blame for the illness of Esther Rantzen’s daughter is placed upon her and her above-average career, thus trying to turn daughter against mother and (if possible) destroy Esther Rantzen’s career.

Before the inception of the Welfare State, such presumptuous willingness to tear down the respectable middle class was unheard of. If there was a school nurse at all, she was certainly not handing out incitements to persecute parents. People with above average IQs are, at times, surprisingly willing to consult people with lower IQs than their own, who are jealous and resentful of their actual and potential success in life.

And, although of course Esther Rantzen does not mention the possibility, it is perfectly possible that her daughter was just another victim of the ‘feminisation’ of education, which discriminates against people with ability and drive, and which has resulted in more girls than boys going to university.

It is more than likely that a daughter of Esther Rantzen would have an above average IQ and a strong drive to achievement; this could easily lead to depression in modern society. What opportunities is it prepared to offer to such people? Although, of course, only physiological causes are considered as initiating the daughter’s depressed state.

Esther Rantzen follows convention in describing her daughter’s absence from school as ‘missing out on two thirds of her education’, but in fact her daughter’s GCSE successes and the fact that she has been offered a place in Oxford illustrate how little attendance at school has to do with examination success, at least in a positive sense, although there may well be many cases in which it is a massively negative factor.

07 February 2007

The feminisation of education

Extracts from ‘The lost boys’ by Jill Parkin

The swimming bag hit the car floor with a thump and my son hit the car seat with an even bigger thump, grumbling: ‘What’s the point?’ His primary school had just lost a swimming competition, largely because their head teacher had picked a team on the basis of enthusiasm rather than ability. To paraphrase that old cliché, it wasn’t the winning that mattered, it was the taking part.

The story of my son’s swimming competition is also the story behind yesterday’s figures showing that boys going to university are now outnumbered by girls in every subject, with 23,000 more places awarded to women than to men. The simple truth is that by the time our boys have done 12 or even 14 years in the feminised environment of today’s schools, they all ask: ‘What’s the point?’

The problems start in the classroom. Instead of the make-or-break sprint to the exam deadline, boys have to endure stultifying coursework. This system of continuous assessment means that anyone who can call up Google on a computer can cut and paste answers from the internet at home. Girls, with their more patient approach to learning, thrive under such a system. But where’s the challenge and excitement for boys? Exams used to be a chance for them to show off and think on their feet. Not any more. No wonder all too many of them fall by the wayside, and are opting out of the chance to go to university.

It’s a teacher truism that little girls want to please and little boys want to win. The trouble is that our whole system is geared to a strange idea of egalitarianism which has somehow been confused with fairness. It is egalitarian to put anyone who can float in a swimming gala, but it is not fair to those who can swim and want to compete.

Boys’ testosterone and its companion competitive streak need to be acknowledged. If they are ignored, boys get listless and they start retreating into their hoodies and terrorising the rest of us. Eventually, they spend their time brawling, picking up ASBOs instead of A-levels. (Daily Mail 1 February 2007)
My comments

The author of this article is appealing for recognition of a genetically determined difference between large groups of the population, i.e. males and females. However, we are far removed from any possibility of the recognition of individual innate differences.

I once said to a television researcher who was interviewing me as a prospect for a programme, ‘People should take into account that if someone is clearly outstanding in one respect, such as IQ, they may also have some unusual peculiarities of temperament which are very likely to lead to problems if no allowance is made for them.’ She expressed disagreement without saying anything, as other people have done to whom I have said this. ‘No,’ she looked as if she was saying, ‘allowance certainly should not be made for people with high IQs to differ from the average in any other way than their ability to score highly on IQ tests.’ I was duly not invited to take part in the programme for which she was researching.

It was my misfortune to be subjected to an educational process which may have not yet been, as this writer expresses it, ‘feminised’, but which was just as bad — if not worse — as a girl in girls’ schools and a women’s college. And in an ideological climate that was about to ‘feminise’ society. What made this misfortune so severe was that I had, to an extreme extent, the intellectual and temperamental characteristics which were recognised as more typically masculine than feminine. The female IQ bell curve was said to be narrower than the male; women were less likely to be geniuses or idiots. My IQ was off the scale at the upper end of the curve, a state of affairs which, although rare in any case, is even less likely to occur in a female than in a male.

Combined with a temperamental liking for intellectual challenge and excitement as defined in this article, this made me very vulnerable to the slow and ‘take it easy’ approach which was imposed on my education. I had a lot of channel capacity and needed to be using it; that is, I needed to be taking more subjects than most people (even than most future Oxford dons) and getting qualifications in them a lot faster.

06 February 2007

Psychology is real and inconvenient

People are always wanting to think that I am advocating some particular psychological attitudes in a way that is applicable to the population in general, and hence to themselves if they go away from here or never come in the first place. The few websites that have links to mine mostly contain expositions of my psychological ideas which make them sound as if they are supportive of hippyish dropout psychology.

Matters are not helped, either, by the fact that both religions, and modern collectivist ideology (the new world religion), instil in people the idea that psychological events are either good or bad, and that their psychology is something for which they are responsible and should be able to alter to taste, so that they are bad if they fail to make it conform to what is socially regarded as good.

So people are very likely to have a lurking fear that they are intrinsically evil or worthless, associated with a fear of self-assertion and autonomy, since anything of that kind led to their being slapped down in infancy, and even throughout their ‘educational’ years. But so long as they don’t try to break away from the social guidelines — which in practice are tolerant of dropping out in the approved manner, as well as of having a salaried and highly-taxed ‘career’ in the approved manner — they can kid themselves that they are not minding about anything and need never confront their real problems.

Well, as a matter of fact, it is exceedingly difficult to change one’s psychological position; when I had psychological problems everyone was keen on telling me that they did not exist. I had to keep telling myself that psychology was real. It did not work in what might appear to be the rational way, or the way that would have been convenient for oneself.

But eventually, after a lot of failed attempts to make something work, and especially after proving to myself very thoroughly that the methods proposed by counsellors etc. did not work (not that I went near such people, but the recommended attitudes are ubiquitous in the modern world), I gradually acquired some degrees of freedom and found that it was possible to make some choices and re-direct certain things.

There was no way, at this stage, that I could have foreseen the extraordinary higher level outcome.

05 February 2007

Doing the washing-up

(copy of a letter)

You commented on the fact that "Mary Poppins", as you called our incipient potential associate, did some washing-up before she went away.

This is indeed a loaded issue and I will try to explain our position a bit more, because I hope that you, like any other permanent contact that we acquire, may one day pass on some of the right ideas about us to somebody who might be interested enough to come and work here themselves, even if only part-time or temporarily. Although in fact we could easily make use of several full-time people and suffer badly from our shortage of manpower.

In exile from an academic career, I have had no option but to work towards setting up an institutional environment of my own, and the most essential part of a college or research department is the domestic and caretaking staff for keeping the environment going within which intellectual work may eventually become possible.

So we do express the hope that anyone who comes to visit in order to get to know the situation better will be prepared to lend a hand with whatever work may be going on, and this is likely to be domestic, as it is not possible for people who are new to the situation to contribute constructively to office work or word-processing associated with correspondence or books in preparation.

I spent a long time talking to the two people who came, as one has to do with potential associates, and I talked quite a lot about work we had done in the past and how it was only lack of funding that had prevented us from continuing to develop various things. Also we gave them a meal at the pub and paid for their taxi back, because I do not want potential associates to feel out of pocket after coming to spend time here.

But in fact the washing up was all either of them had done on two visits, the first one quite long, during which I had spent several hours giving them information which they seemed to want to have, mostly about areas of research which I do not like thinking about. I have no interest in empty speculation when the data cannot be increased by actual research. I mean, when I am not being able to do any research — although some fictitious theorising, and fraudulent or rubbishy ‘research’, may be being done by other people with academic status and salaries.

If I did not stipulate that visitors have to be prepared to do a modicum of whatever is necessary, our lives could be totally occupied with entertaining people who are prepared to waste our time. And don’t worry, I never get a good deal out of it, usually I get an even worse one, because most of those who come to visit take care not to stay long enough to do even that much work, or for me to start saying anything I want to say.

In case you think we have a lot of money to spend on garden plants, remember that we are outcast intellectuals, the true underclass of the egalitarian society. We cannot afford holidays, or only the shortest and cheapest, occasionally, so we think it best to make our gardens interesting so we will not suffer too much from staying at home throughout the year. Also this has the effect of enhancing the value of our houses when we come to sell them.

You know I would still be willing to lend you some money and help you make capital gains in a Pillings ISA, if you would ever like that. This is something I am prepared to do for any fairly permanent contact that we can manage to get.

It is very difficult to get people to realise that there could be any advantages in coming to work here because the modern world is anti-capitalist (as well as anti-ability).

In fact, since we are attempting to make academic careers without being able to derive any status or salary from society by giving tutorials and lectures or by doing research, we have to substitute investment for those things as a source of income, and it is a very stressful and time-consuming way of making a living. Also of course we have to pay for many facilities for ourselves which non-exiled academics are provided with. Oxbridge colleges still provide their resident academics with automatic dining hall (which implies washing up) facilities. In addition to which we have to pay for the publication of our own books. When I finished my D.Phil. philosophy thesis, Oxford University Press refused to publish it, which it would have been almost certain to do if I had been a Professor or even held any lesser appointment. My thesis was radically undermining of a large part of what is being produced worldwide by salaried academic philosophers – there are said to be 10,000 of them in America alone.

Therefore, although I got the D.Phil. for the thesis, it was largely ignored, except that its ideas were reproduced by some salaried philosophers, twisting them to produce a quite different conclusion.

Of course, you may say that the reason I do not have a Professorship, or any other statusful and salaried academic appointment, is that it was always clear that I was liable to write theses which would not be found congenial by a majority of modern philosophers.

02 February 2007

University gender gap

Men are becoming an endangered species on university campuses, education officials warned yesterday. Latest figures show that women made up a remarkable 57 per cent of all first time graduates in 2006. They are outnumbering men in every subject including engineering and mathematics.

The trend has prompted fears that the men are being left behind as education plays to strengths associated with women such as diligence and attentiveness. Girls outscore boys in GCSEs and A-levels. The Higher Education Funding Council for England, which distributes cash to universities, warns that young men may struggle to get on in the workplace. David Eastwood, the quango’s chief executive, says employers increasingly favour graduates. ‘The wider worry is that if we are not careful we are going to arrive at a position where young lads are alienated, they are underskilled,’ he added.

Professor Alan Smithers, an education expert from Buckingham University, said: ‘The performance of girls has outstripped that of boys, first of all in GCSE, but since 2000, at A-level as well. ‘Boys may do better with the big bang terminal examination approach, whereas girls more often have patience and persistence to put in coursework.’ The proportion of men at university declined steadily throughout the 20th century. By the early 1990s, female graduates were outnumbering males for the first time. (Daily Mail, 31 January 2007)
My comments

It is already the case that boys of school leaving age are alienated. They are often what I would call demoralised criminals, which is what the educational system is aiming at producing. The whole object of the modern ideology is to destroy the individual, which means what I call centralised psychology (see my book Advice to Clever Children). Boys and men were more likely to be associated with some kind of centralised psychology -- albeit expressed in the form of very crude ideals -- so they have been particularly under attack in the modern world.

‘Girls more often have patience and persistence to put in coursework’. Girls were supposed to be interested in social interactions and be less achievement orientated, so it is not too surprising that they are better able to tolerate boring and pointless group activities, and boring and pointless work set by hostile (?) teachers.

If people are forced to undergo periods of supervised preparation for any exam they wish to take to obtain a qualification, it is inevitable, even if not deliberately planned, that the system will discriminate against types of people that school and university teachers dislike, such as those with high IQs and/or a lot of drive of their own, rather than an obsessional interest in other people and in using social structures to gain power over them.