“Writers are engineers of human souls.” ― Yury Olesha
( Roman Skaskiw )
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 08:00:00 UTC
“Writers are engineers of human souls.” ― Yury Olesha
( Roman Skaskiw )
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 08:00:00 UTC
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/04/myths-about-attending-college-debunked.html#AGAINST THE ACADEMY’S SALE OF INDULGENCES – THE CHARTER FOR THE NEW REFORMATION
(good arguments for your use.)
Christopher,
This self-serving post is disingenuous at best.
As far as we know, right now, students learn almost nothing in university that is used in life. University largely performs a filtering and indoctrination service. So students are filtered out of the workforce by extremely expensive procedural gymnastics. They are not taught anything that helps them in the workforce. They are only taught the work discipline that was not provided to them in public k-12. We can test this argument fairly easily by employment and productivity comparisons of other northern European education systems and ours – which expensively educate far fewer, but impose far greater discipline in k-12.
The empirical and honest analysis, which has been provided by economists for years now, is to (a) perform output rankings of colleges by the performance of students, giving no weight to capital resources, (b) to measure how much of the revenue capture is devoted to undergraduates and teaching professors, versus how much of the revenue is spent on dead weight (administration), profiteering (the physical plant and endowment), and graduate programs (profiteering). (c) how much retention there is of the freshman class through graduation(test of honesty rather than entrapment). (d) how much is diverted for publicity and status purposes (sports).
The empirical test of education is this: If (1)overhead was capped at 15%, and (2) all but an additional 10% was required to stay within the departments that performed the teaching, and (3) if teaching and research departments were separated, and (4) if graduate programs had to be self-funding, and (5) if universities were only able to collect a percentage of income from their graduates for a period of 30 years, and so if graduates could not earn, then universities could not collect income, then what would universities teach, and how would they teach instead?
That is the reform that is required.
As far as we know, educational institutions since at least 1963 have provided a means of privatizing public wealth that parents could have saved for their retirements, and we have now a generation about to retire that has been sold a defective product without warranty, at the expense of their retirements, for no marginal increase in the employability of their offspring.
This is era has been one of the most massive misappropriations of public wealth in western history – equal to that of the church’s selling of indulgences, and the reason for the protestant reformation against the church. The military industrial complex at very least, is a net break even for Americans because of the petro-dollar, and the regulatory capture we impose on world politics, finance and trade. But the academy literally sells indulgences: fraudulent, underperforming products without warranty, insulated from claims against warranty by the state, and the outcome of which produce seriously damaging externalities for our economy, culture, and civilization.
Those are the facts. The boomer-generation’s Academy has not only been a bastion of pseudoscience in the social sciences, instituted a permanent degradation of the western canon, and has been a bastion of financial privatization on a scale we have not seen since the late middle ages.
We should note that all of the sources you quote are paid interests, and that none of the sources you list are independent economists specializing in education, nor advocates of education reform.
We are conservatives. We are supposed to be the people that tell the truth.
Postmodern deceits, pseudoscience, statistical deception, propagandism, and reality-by-chanting are tactics of, and mastered by, the left. There is no room in conservatism (aristocracy) for foolery and deceit. Civilization is too important a craft to be left to the foolish and corrupt.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 07:08:00 UTC
—“It happened once that he set sail for Corinth and, being overtaken by a storm, he was in great consternation.
Someone said, “We plain men are not alarmed, and are you philosophers turned cowards?”
To this he replied, “The lives at stake in the two cases are not comparable.””—Aristippus
Thanks Paul. 😉
Aristocratia.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 03:47:00 UTC
—“Parasitism robs everyone of Liberty. Let’s see if Rothbardians are at ease with this. :)”— Jorge Alfredo Olortegui Oneeglio
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 06:03:00 UTC
THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION
(from elsewhere) (thread at bottom)
—“There’s the very Rothbardian argument that a woman has an absolute right to evict an embryo from her womb, on grounds that this embryo’s interactions with her are parasitic by default — and she’s got the right to stop parasites interacting with her.”— Johannes Meixner
Once you grasp that the purpose of Rothbardian argument is not TRUTH, but JUSTIFICATION, you understand that it’s all irrelevant. (Actually, that it’s all dishonest. And actually, that it’s all lies.)
As a mother, you do not have the moral justification to kill your offspring unless your offspring will kill you – all other arguments are illogical.
(Moral rules are justificationary because they are contractual. Conversely, the search for truth is critical).
You certainly CAN kill your offspring for other reasons, just as I can kill you for other reasons, or you can kill anyone else for other reasons. Now, you might say that killing is pragmatic – I have no problem with killing. But you cannot deceive others by obscurant argument, and that you are not killing. You are in fact, killing. NOW… As for Parasitism, a child is not parasitic for the simple reason that it is an offspring (kin). A kin is an inter-temporal investment. It is the reason that you exist. The purpose of traditional taboos is moral and logical: you should take all precautions possible so that you kill as infrequently as possible. But that said, we should preserve the stigma that one is killing, precisely because one is in fact, killing. Murder is murder. Whether we choose to prosecute murderers is a matter of willingness. But our willingness to prosecute murderers is a choice, while the act of murder is a fact.
I have no problem with murder. I argue that we should do, and we need to do, a LOT of killing at present. But I have a problem with deceit. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of killing the unborn and not killing the repeated violent offenders.
(But then, that’s feminism for you: (a) women are victims and devoid of responsibility for their actions, and (b) women are fully capable of military participation, and membership in the special forces. OR (a) abortion is a woman’s right, and (b) we cannot raise animals for fur. OR (a) abortion isn’t murder, and (b) women’s almost universal insistence that their children are good, and (c) women’s almost universal defense of their criminal and murderous offspring. All speech is justification. The question is only whether we justify moral or immoral action. And moral action is that which does not break the contract for cooperation. And the contract for cooperation is one in which we do not impose costs upon others. **So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.** )
The parasitic argument cannot hold, since demonstrated feminist behavior in all walks of personal and political life, is parasitic.
While I could write an entire book on the subject, using thousands of similar examples, as far as I know the last sentence: ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.*** is the final word on the matter.
Unpleasant truths are unpleasant truths.
(Under Propertarianism all moral arguments are decidable. There are no moral paradoxes.)
Curt Doolittle
https://www.facebook.com/johannes.jost.meixner/posts/807604825980936
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 05:47:00 UTC
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaninglesslol. Don Finnegan?
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-17 08:26:00 UTC
http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/04/14/how-progressives-purge-corporate-cultures/
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 16:28:00 UTC
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacquishine/its-a-shameSHAMING THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES
The technique we call Shaming (which is the public use of gossip), evolved (like gossip), as a means of controlling alphas by rallying support from many in order to limit the few.
Gossip is one of the three possible means of social coercion:
(1) Violence (murder, harm, loss, deprivation, threat),
(2) Remuneration (credit, gift, payment or exchange, promise), and
(3) Gossip (compliment, criticism, guilting, shaming, rallying, and ostracization).
Whether Gossip, Violence or Remuneration is used, is immaterial. Gossip, Violence, and Remuneration are neutral actions. The questions are only (a) whether gossip, violence or remuneration are used to stop or prevent parasitism, or whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are used to create parasitism. And (b) whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are performed truthfully or dishonestly.
The uncomfortable truth is that all advancement in civilization has been the result of the construction of private and semi-private (group commons) property. And that individuals have NOT BEEN OPPRESSED, but that they reproduce without the ability to support themselves, in an attempt to parasitically reproduce at the expense of others.
In large part, the majority in the middle and upper middle classes, seek to prevent parasitism by the political elites, and seek to prevent parasitism by the lower classes who are insufficiently productive to maintain themselves – especially as technological innovation advances.
So the feminist narrative that the author Jacqui Shine attempts to use as yet another form of shaming, is itself a deceit: she says people are oppressed when in fact they and their parents are parasites. She says the struggle throughout history was not Malthusian, but against oppression. Neither of which is true. So this entire argument is an immoral, parasitic attempt to justify the desire of women to reproduce parasitically without demonstrating that they are worthy of reproduction.
That is the scientific and economic analysis. The moral analysis is that Jacqui’s argument is an immoral one. The logical and economic argument is that she engages in fraud as an attempt to obscure theft. And that this fraud is perpetrated by an obscurant deceit. And that she uses rallying and shaming to obscure this deceit.
Those are the facts.
Now, the question is, why do we not shame liars in all their parasitic forms?
Of which Postmodernists, and Feminists are the most expert perpetrators. j
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 07:39:00 UTC
(will someone pls explain this to me. ii have a hard time with humor in the first place, but this totally escapes me.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-15 15:22:00 UTC
http://conservativetribune.com/video-surfaces-obama-1995/Obama hates white people. Just like Paul Krugman. between them and the NYT…
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-15 07:59:00 UTC