Monthly Data and obligatory cat photos.

Ken Perrot at Open Parachute has the NZ blog stats up for the month, and I think the sitemeter has gone flakey because he can’t see my site. But Sitemeter has 6.3 K visits this month, so thanks.

Screenshot from 2015-03-02 18:11:09

WordPress makes things a lot more pretty.

Screenshot from 2015-03-02 18:32:54

Thanks, folks, for the traffic. And a quote from Karl du Fresne, one of the old journos who now blogs. For non Kiwis, Laila Harre is very left wing — she met her husband picking coffee for the Sandinistas, and Matthew Hooten is a market researcher with impeccable Tory connections.

Does that necessarily make her a hypocrite? While I dislike Harre’s politics intensely and always get a quiet thrill when sanctimonious leftists are exposed as closet capitalists, there’s no law that says they must drive 1980 Cortinas and wear track pants. In fact there’s a long tradition of left-leaning political reformers coming from privileged backgrounds.
And while I initially shared my informant’s shock at the suggestion that Harre and Hooton were chums, on reflection I came around to a different point of view.

I thought about my own situation. I have a number of long-standing friends who don’t like my political views, but we don’t let that get in the way. We focus on the likeable qualities we see in each other and generally succeed in setting politics to one side.
Life would be very dull if we fraternised only with people who think like us. It would be like being trapped for life in a Rotary Club meeting.

Let’s assume for a moment that Harre and Hooton really did go skiing together. Who are we to say they shouldn’t enjoy each other’s company?
Skiing with Hooton doesn’t mean having to agree with his politics. In fact the two might learn something from each other. Isn’t that preferable to shouting at each other over an ideological chasm?

The notion that we shouldn’t associate with people who think differently alarms me. Democracy is about the free exchange of ideas, but we retreat into tribal enclaves, erect barricades and refuse to have anything to do with the enemy.
We block our ears and hum loudly when anyone dares express a contrary thought. It’s as if we’re scared of being exposed to ideas that might turn out to be less heinous than we imagined. Groupthink takes over.

This happens on both the Right and the Left and has become noticeably worse since the advent of the Internet. Political blogs and websites provide fortresses where like-minded people can band together, drawing comfort and reassurance from their conformity and angrily repelling all invaders.
Anyone who challenges the consensus becomes the enemy.

Now the obligatory cat photo. This is Stripes, AKA Tripod — who is not one month post amputation.


The hedonistic slagheap.

Hedonism burns out. Leaving people feeling discarded, burnt out, on a human slag heap.

Janet Bloomfield discourses on the ideal: one that most us do not attain.

Most humans, like it or not, are pretty predictable. Most women want to be at home with their young children, and most men take great pride in providing for their families and there is nothing wrong with that. Enforcing that as an immutable social requirement is not acceptable to anyone, one hopes. There are plenty of women who are perfectly happy to spend an hour with their children on an average day, and plenty of men who would love nothing more than to be at home with their little ones, making mud pies and doing laundry. Those men and women should find each other.

What happens in our current reality is that women are taught that earning an income is the only measure of their worth, and it’s only when they have children they realize how very wrong that is. Men are also taught that earning an income is the only measure of their worth, and when they have children, that is generally confirmed for them. The most important thing a man with children can do is protect them. We don’t live on the savannah in grass huts anymore, so hunting down predatory lions isn’t on the daily calendar for most men. Modern life requires a man to hunt down money. Radical MGTOWs scream blue murder about this because they hate that a great many men take an enormous pride in providing and protecting their families. They are hysterically opposed to any definition of masculinity that centers on men providing for and protecting their loved ones, because they take that to mean men are “disposable” to their loved ones.

Screenshot from 2015-03-02 20:42:35

And that great blogger Free Northerner demonstrates the costs of not sticking to the rules given to Moses: virgin until marriage: faithful thereafter, for life.

Except for a few men, playerdom will never be fulfilling in the end. Shallow pleasure does not bring contentment, only momentary happiness. Meaningless sex is simply the same effect as drugs, except one step removed (or more accurately, drugs are simply artificial inducements of effects similar to that which meaningless sex will bring). As with drugs, it will not satisfy, but it will become increasingly consuming as it becomes increasingly less pleasurable.

You will have sex, feel pleasure, then have but feel slightly less pleasure, and each time you will require more sex, more kinkiness, hotter women, and yet still feel slightly less pleasure each time. Meanwhile, you never feel the contentment you seek. The hedonic treadmill continues to roll until you either die or get off.

So, why not just ride for a while and get off at the right time?

The treadmill takes its toll even after you get off. Just as a carousel rider suffers as an alpha widow, so to does the ex-player suffer from the player’s curse.

A man who limits himself to one sexual partner has, by definition, the best sexual partner of his life with whom he is having the best sex of his life. The player, not so much. Any long-term relationship he may try will always be haunted by the ghosts of better sex and more beautiful partners of time past.

What he does not add is that those “few men” are damaged. They are ruled by their lizard brain: they lack discernment, and are gamed themselves. The amount of bitterness you find in the older players who have attended themselves to finding and seducing the flakey, the broken, the damaged and those who want the excitement of having sex with the junkyard dog is palpable.

I’d rather live alone and have peace. But I have a hope in Christ: I am connected to my family: I pushed back when my wife tried to micromanage my family. Many do not.

And they feel cast off. There are consequences to this.

The trouble with the current situation is that men won’t hang around if they feel they cannot contribute: They will leave.

That has a cost, including despair, and its lethal cousin suicide.

A friend of mine, Henry, 50, who divorced seven years ago, considers himself as part of a group he refers to as “remaindered men”. “It is the sense that we colluded in the process of making ourselves surplus to requirement,” he explains. “We married capable women who took over every aspect of life. They ran the household, the children, the social life. For a while it seems a good meal ticket to be on, but in the end the horrible logic of the process results in us being without any kind of a role at all and not much self-confidence to find another one within the existing framework.

“We are caught between the old model of being the breadwinner and the new model of being the co-washer-upper and feeder, and the truth is we never really mastered either of these roles – old or new – and this has led to a profound sense of crisis in men. Unless you really are able to look back at what happened, you can’t move on.

“The immediate reaction to divorce is to sink into a slump of despair, but then you turn into a teenager again – it’s the false paradise of endless encounters with new women. Men lost their way when they stopped going out and killing the food or bringing in the bacon. I feel my generation of men inhabit a place that I call neutered uselessness.

There is a slagheap where people who follow go, when their body cannot keep up with their dreams, and when they find that being cute, unique, or ripped and quirky no longer matter.

For what matters is character. And the Hedonic treadmill destroys it almost as much as progressive protest as performance art.

Screenshot from 2015-03-02 21:10:25

The light is burning low. Blog on.

Why do I blog? I have lost count of the number of worthy blogs that have fallen silent, and when you link to them you are told they do not exist. As if the wayback machine does not exist, and internet archeology is becoming a discipline.

Because I am not Mundabor, railing about the very real failures of the magisterium: on my side of the Tiber the errors are unchecked and very apparent.

Instead I seem to be repeating myself, warning of the errors. As if one should get tired of warning. The lectionary posts — those unpopular ones, now with a code to the chapter I am discussion — are the foundation of what happens here. For if this blog does not show the word of God, then it should be shut, and I will go on posting pretty photos where they belong.

And I need to add: half the time I find the links via either Wintry Knight (a staunch Reformed apologist) or Mundabor (a staunchly traditional Papist). I don’t always hat tip them: for the sake of clarity.

When you read the BBC article, a chap there has worked all day. A text editor has reviewed it, perhaps several times. A separate professional has made the title. Other people might have been involved in research. The end product is a story, from beginning to end. Often with several links to other stories that help to better understand, or amplify the issue.

A blog is a series of short, personal reflections written who knows where, when there is time, perhaps with such a bad internet connection that it takes forever even to post a link. It does not give to the reader the pre-digested food, so that he does not have to make the effort to chew it. It does, however, presuppose that the readers knows what the blog author is talking about, because the reader is supposed to follow the ongoing conversation.

In this time, the darkness is falling. It is not time to be quiet. We may be silenced soon enough, by the SJWs, the concern trolls, those who would not promote us or move is to the antipodes: to obscurity.

Forgetting that it’s quite pleasant in obscurity, and the antipodes have their beauty. One of the roles we can have is speaking with a little more freedom: the country is too small to let the SJW rampage unchecked.

And as if light and vision is not needed within the church and the nation. Mundabor again, emphasis mine. He refers to another blog: go to his place to get the links.

The new ones are so bad, they let the old ones appear amateurs. You remember Benedict’s butler? When did he steal almost 200 books from his own bishops? Mind, the man has house detention. Will Cardinal Baldisseri have to suffer the same destiny? Don’t bet your pint.

Unfortunately, there are always those who – either because they are naive, or because they are disingenuous – manage to bat for the wrong team.

The very first comment of the post is from a certain “Denis”, who commits to cyber eternity the following words:

This article is trading in the kind of tittle tattle it appears to be condemning. Perhaps during Lent we should all be seeking to build up rather than knock down.

This is the kind of comment which, if I did not write a rather candid blog, would motivate me to start one post-haste.

Good Lord! A mess without precedent in at least seven, and probably twenty centuries is devastating the Church, and those who rightly criticise the utter moral decay of the Vatican personnel should be accused of “knocking down”? We have come to the point of common theft on a grand scale, and we should shut up because it’s Lent? We point out to the shameless bullying of a poor family father in his Fifties, and we should be held for people trading in “tittle tattle”? Who is this man, Grima Wormtongue?

This passive-aggressive, or rather aggressive-passive attitude of some people is truly disturbing. It advocates silence in front of evil in the name of… what again? What in Hades does “build up” means, if it is detached from that solid Catholic thinking that must condemn this kind of corruption and scandals? When was Lent the time you don’t talk, of all people, of the moneylenders in the Temple?

Well, yeah. Mundabor fights the good fight. But on the other side of the Tiber, it appears that we are ruled by the prudes. Those who would damn Marlowe for lewdity, and Milton for defending freedom of speech. The current threatpoints are violence — which has expanded to contradicting her, and adultery, which has expanded through pornography (visual only: her reading of quite sadomaschistic “urban romances” does not count) to seeing nudity or skimpy clothing.

And this needs correction: for within marriage the husband is accountable to the kirk and God for his wife, not the other way around. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out which of these were not written by women.

I’ve gone round and round with Christians on this
. If the wife is the arbiter of any sin her husband commits, she is then the arbiter of all of his sins and is the head of the marriage and in rebellion to God.

It’s one thing for hubs to be openly committing adultery
. It’s one thing for hubs to be addicted to pornography and depriving his wife of sex. Those sins might require some drastic action like divorce or imploring hubs to get some help beyond prayer and his own willpower.

But watching a TV show like GoT? Really? This is what’s got Gregoire’s reader all twisted up? This justifies wife threatening to break the TV, refuse sex, tell him to sleep somewhere else, or leave with the kids?

This is a power play, plain and simple. This is wife asserting headship over the husband.

This also tells the husband “My feelings reign supreme in this marriage. Therefore, I am head of this marriage. Give me what I want, or else.”

Even more importantly, it tells the husband that if he wants to occupy the space of biblical head of household, he must EARN that space. But, biblical headship doesn’t specify that – it simply installs the husband as head of the Christian household, with no prerequisites or qualifications other than “husband”. He doesn’t have to earn it – he’s simply placed there by divine fiat.

(NOTE to haters and advocates of “equalitarian” marriage who might be reading this – I know you don’t agree with any of this. I know you advocate “equalitarian” marriage, which is a nonentity. It cannot and does not exist. You can advocate for whatever you wish. I am simply pointing out here the biblically ordained hierarchy for Christian marriages, and how they are set up. The fact that you don’t like husband headship in Christian marriages is immaterial and irrelevant. That’s what the bible says is the hierarchy for Christian marriages, which is what Gregoire’s post purports to address and what this post addresses.)

I’m divorced, and I have this nightmare. That I will be held accountable for my ex-wife: for her sins, for I did not call her enough — in part because of fear of the Duluth model, which exists in my jurisdiction, and it part because I was taught that nonsense called the equalitarian model.

Because the husband — or before marriage, the man is held to be wrong. Consider Game of Thrones (which apparently got this going). In the first episode the shocking facts are two: that the queen is having an incestuous affair with her brother — and that the brother pushes a child out of a window when he sees it saying resignedly “the things I do for love”.

That is shocking. That horrified.

What we need to be looking at is the instability in our marriages, the ease with which we do give justification for ending it. This generation of parents will be held to account, for nine out of ten children in many Western countries have their security ripped apart as their parents separate, and while this injustice continues (and children suffer, while husbands are jailed because they cannot afford the unrealistic child support the industry demands) women become more and more sensitive.

And then wonder why men consider the risk of being in any relationship is far too great. For the law and society will say men are not accountable: but we know that the legal system and nature ensures we are.

Slaves of ideology, less than human.

Utu is a very useful word: it is borrowed from Maori. It has two meanings: revenge and reciprocity. It is the law of the talon writ large: being generous to your friends but justification of destruction for enemies.

And it is the main mode of the SJW, Islamic or secular. Roosh is wrong to call them merely a left-wing form of stupidity. The stigmata of the SJW is a sense that they will destroy all if they can push their agenda through, in the hope of a perfectly tolerant state, or perfectly Islamic state; both of course are various forms of Hell.

I would not apologize for being brown.
I would work my ass off to not be fat and poor.

[This is another thing that gets me. There are minorities that have been historically enslaved or oppressed and who have appalling social deprivation. They suffer. But people who are paler than this AngloCelt].

If you deny the existence of shame and do not work on your faults, however, your hatred leaks out, and shows it in your actions. Nothing new here; the Jacobins and Bolsheviks had the same evil psychodynamic processes in place, to make them less than human.

Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.

Even though on the surface it seems like a widespread hatred of masculinity…deep down it’s a widespread hatred of femininity. Just ask any woman who thinks loving her husband, raising children, and taking care of a home how much grief she gets from WOMEN.

I mean if women hate men so much…why do they want to be just like them.

The trouble is that these people are nonproductive. They want to manage the process, but not solve the problem. They follow Pournelle’s Iron rule of the NGO: the first generation want to solve the problem but the second generation want the problem to continue because the NGO will then survive.

As if NGOs feed anyone. Or SJWs, for that matter: they need the state to give them power to regulate, or they will die.

Feminism can’t possibly exist in a vacuum
. Because with feminism, nothing gets done. I learned that first hand. Feminism is a parasite that sucks off its patriarchical host of productivity, order, purpose, and authority. We can not have feminism in the absence of the patriarchy. So long as there are men who are willing to work, be controlled, take orders, and get things done, feminism has an opportunity to seize some portion of that surplus productivity and wealth creation for its own self-centered ends. Take away that wealth creation, feminism ceases to exist

There are some times to go Galt, and this is one. Give not the SJW oxygen. If you get one trolling, start with scorn and escalate to the banhammer. Keep your website self-hosted, and consider where it is hosted.

And remember, punishing those who have truth while letting evil flourish is a feature, not a bug, of the imperial republics that try to rule the Western Hegemony, while Killing those who tell the truth is the standard procedure in the Islamic opposition.

We should no part in either. Let them be slaves of their ideology. We will not be less than human.

I found this later. Do not be like this, unless you want to live in a particularly mauve form of hell

Pray for him. Do not be like him.

Graphism and administrivia.

Firstly, the graph, and what is wrong with it. If you look at this, you would consider the Muslims to be young and educated, similar to Jewish orthodox, and the reformed to be at about my age, and less educated.

While tha mainstream church is older a much more educated than the assemblies of God, Baptists, and Historically black churches.

There is one problem. Percent of college graduates is no longer a useful proxy measure of above-average intelligence: the need for credentialing has meant that far too many people go to university, and (after five or six years of struggle, and significant debt) graduate to unemployment, Their parents — my age — went into trades. This is going to change, but as it does the use of education as a measure of intelligence will give perverse results: the most astute young men are avoiding university (particularly American College) unless they need it for a professional school.

Now for the administrivia. I have adjusted some of the linkage here (as sites go silent they are removed, and when the reappear they get added). I’m trying to add at least the chapter of the lectionary readings to those posts. And, finally, the university year has started here… which means, for me, not drinking (as the students do) or blogging but deadlines. The lectionary posts will continue, but the linkage and quotage posts may become less frequent.

The darkness remains within us [SJW tweetstorming gnats, and ignoring elephants].

One of the things you learn in therapy, in working as a therapist, is that no one can stand too much honesty. The defences we build up around us are made of myth and lies, and are broken easily. We think we have our nightmares held in chains of iron, when they are as fragile as gossamer.

Yes, I have done too many clinical hours this week.

To have everything I was laid bare before me, to be mocked and jeered at for every mistake, secret and wrong took away so many fears I’d kept as mine. I no longer needed them.

But I paid a heavy price for the wisdom I gained. Such is reality when it finds us ignoring the Truth we knew by heart once. We think we understand ourselves, that we know a little something about the world around us.

We simply do not.


I can’t imagine it’s easy for him to tell the world his story. But his heart for the broken gives him courage to not care. To love and reach out, and not care about himself or what people think of him. This is what it means to daily die to yourself.

When I began this blog, I had a heart for the broken, but it’s gotten lost. I know the people who read it, and I know it’s not “appropriate” to talk about the difficult stuff. I don’t want my calling, it’s not pretty. It won’t make my family proud of me. But Christ, calls us not to care. to love so passionately, that only He matters. We must point the broken to Christ, we have to be so full of compassion that we tell our stories.

Instead we lie to each other. We set up regulations about what can and cannot be said. And if someone say the wrong thing: the offensive tweet, the pile on his horrendous. I need to thank Grant for finding this: it is from the NY Times and getting into that can be hard, but here is the consequence of one joke tweet from a woman probably mocking the bubble mentality of White Upper Class people that was taken as Raycist. It is worth noting, however, that the ANC see the lives of Afrikaners as of little value, and are just as genocidal, or more so, that the Boers ever were.

Her extended family in South Africa were African National Congress supporters — the party of Nelson Mandela. They were longtime activists for racial equality. When Justine arrived at the family home from the airport, one of the first things her aunt said to her was: “This is not what our family stands for. And now, by association, you’ve almost tarnished the family.”

As she told me this, Sacco started to cry. I sat looking at her for a moment. Then I tried to improve the mood. I told her that “sometimes, things need to reach a brutal nadir before people see sense.”

“Wow,” she said. She dried her eyes. “Of all the things I could have been in society’s collective consciousness, it never struck me that I’d end up a brutal nadir.”

She glanced at her watch. It was nearly 6 p.m. The reason she wanted to meet me at this restaurant, and that she was wearing her work clothes, was that it was only a few blocks away from her office. At 6, she was due in there to clean out her desk.

“All of a sudden you don’t know what you’re supposed to do,” she said. “If I don’t start making steps to reclaim my identity and remind myself of who I am on a daily basis, then I might lose myself.”

The restaurant’s manager approached our table. She sat down next to Sacco, fixed her with a look and said something in such a low volume I couldn’t hear it, only Sacco’s reply: “Oh, you think I’m going to be grateful for this?”

Screenshot - 150215 - 12:53:02

Political correctness is poisoning our society. We have become too sensitive to offence. We have forgotten who we are, and we no longer recall our faults, pretending the false pride we have is increase self esteem and righteousness. We finely chop the words in social media, parsing for any triggers that can cause another outrage campaign, but ignore the great injustices in this world.
Screenshot - 150215 - 13:04:37

There are a lot of positive things going on, and many things we can share. There is a place for social media, and finely graded media at that. Many of us have photos to share which have no meaning outside our circle of friends. Many of us want to campaign, want to discuss things.

But if we get offended about sarcasm — particularly on Twitter, where brevity encourages both wit and misunderstanding — people will go elsewhere. They will start using systems that remove pictures within minutes, like snapchat, or make texts and emails ephemeral.

For not all conversations are measured, official and indeed about work. The current tendency to make everything a witch hunt is held back outside the USA by employment law — for only in the US can you fire at will. I would rather deal with trolls and haters than have some Pharisaical SJW monitoring our conversations for whatever metric of hate they chose to use today.

Let speech be free: for it is only in telling people they are wrong, and this is a better way, can correction occur. And if we do not argue with words, there is a risk we will argue with bullets, for the dark remains within us.

I hate churchian lies.

We have a very simple choice in this life.

We can follow the teachings of God or the memes, the myths and ideologies of this world. Both of these choices have consequences in this life and the life to come.

There are no guarantees in this life, but the advice from this world is — young man, ignore the memes of the girls. Avoid the university and the witch hunts within. Do not commit, either live without women or keep women at a distance: ensure your contraceptive and legal protections against sexual conquests are great: get fit, read good books, and work with your hands. If you keep a budget and keep your frame around women, you will move up the male totem pole (which is scored by women) and may have a good life, but guarantees there are not.

Screenshot - 130215 - 07:15:39

This leads to this kind of advice to women, missing some points, around the inherent instability of marriages based completely on growth or pleasure, but is the advice given both in secular areas and the church.

Halting the marriage decline and reviving the institution of marriage will depend on:

  • A robust economy over the long-term
  • A decrease in the size of the wealth gap
  • More educational opportunities without the burden of debt
  • Job training and education in sectors where the American economy is likely to grow

The decline of marriage in the U.S. has nothing to do with hookup culture, females going to college or delaying marriage until their late 20s.

The data is clear: Millennials want to get married and have families. They want egalitarian relationships, regardless of gender or education level. Surely what’s left of the American Dream should include that.

Susan Walsh needs to get out more. New Zealand has a robust economy, a smaller wealth gap, less educational debt (and interest free student loans) and a better mix of educational types, but we have the same decline in marriage. Our society has adjusted by the family courts considering any relationship over 2 years to be akin to a marriage.

If you follow the world you may have success, at the cost of your soul, But that is not promised. If you follow Christ however, you are promised troubles and failure. In this life, you participate in the suffering of Christ.

And the world will call you foolish.


But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

(2 Timothy 3 ESV)

For those who follow Christ, obedience to the word of God and a clear conscience is a continuous struggle. The dynamics of the churchian subvert this. They tend to tell the pretty lie. They tend to preach prosperity and healing, when healing is not the result God wants, and God is letting us go through trials for our good.

It as if the Churchian says it does not matter how you study or train, you will succeed in the exam or game or race, because we will put an Olympic Athlete or Rhodes Scholar in your place, and give you the credit.

Forgetting that the test motivated the study and training.

So look at what they do. They assuage guilt. They use pretty lies. They sing songs which sound spiritual but are all about them, {Ms. Jobe did not write this song. The person who did told the Hillsong eldership that he had cancer, when he did not. When that came up, Hillsong dropped the song, even though it was popular, for they did not want to be associated with a lie. I’m using this version because it has the lyrics: which are straight churchian prosperity gospel]

For those in Christ, obedience requires that we place ourselves at risk of ridicule and ruin. The world hates us wants to destroy our marriages: yet we should marry if celibacy is not within us. The world considers all our desire and love can be reduced to sexual desire, ignoring that there are many ways of caring for others, and that not all are called to, or are capable of marriage.

Godly marriage is now subversive. If your conscience burns, for you cannot get her (or him) our of your mind, then marry. The “red pill” men will call you a fool, and the feminist women will call you a doormat, let them. You would rather follow Christ.

But do not count the success of your marriage in church in economic terms. Count it it troubles. Count it in lives changed. Count in by the amount of hate emails you get. For if we are not different from the world, we have lost our point.

The utility of correction and the death of credentials.

This week, for me, is primarily about peer review. Not generating peer reviews, but dealing with comments from peer reviewers. Fixing errors they have found. I don’t like this, but it is necessary and needed. The questions and comments lead to a better, more nuanced, and more appropriate paper.

You cannot check your privilege when you are wrong.

CH has the principle.

Being “questioned” is not an aspect of disrespect in and of itself. Without discussions involving questions as to the efficacy of any given proposal then you just have echo chambers. Men question each other constantly. I can’t say I typically enjoy being grounded by reality when I have what I feel to be a great idea. No one likes getting shot down. The world ain’t nice. If a person doesn’t like getting shot down, the only way to avoid it is by learning to dodge bullets, improve tactical responses to any given situation and accept that you’re not correct all or even most of the time because of the equipment between your legs.

Sunshine has one application of the same…. (but see below)

The problem is that in our modern society
, the job market is more credential-based than it is skill-based, at least for higher status jobs. For example, it doesn’t matter how good a teacher you are, you can’t teach without first getting a four-year university degree and a state teaching license. Skill is secondary to credentials, and our university degree programs prepare people to be credentialed but don’t prepare them very well with actual skills. This is so for several reasons.

First, students have to take a lot of mandated classes in the “diversity” subjects. These classes rarely present a balanced discussion of women’s issues or racial issues nor do they provide students with actual skills. Instead, they are a form of societal welfare for the far left. Radical (usually Marxist) politics is de rigeur for these professorships; you will be hard pressed to find any diversity of social or political thought among most college professors.

Second, degree programs have to prepare students to pass credentialing exams. The percentage of students who pass these exams reflects back on the program, so naturally there is some “teaching to the test” at the expense of teaching real skills.

And finally, there are simply too many people going to college. The last two towns I lived in were Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; in both these university towns, nearly everyone with a job has or is working on a degree. Your barista who serves you your morning latte, the secretary at the DMV, your garbage man – they’ve practically all got degrees.

Do you really need a degree to pick up trash? Of course not, so why did the garbage man get a degree? Because he was told relentlessly that getting an education would get him ahead in life, but in truth the only people who are really helped by getting a degree are people with a certain level of intellect and drive. The average person simply doesn’t have that level of intellect and drive nor is that a problem. The world only needs a handful of English professors; it needs far more trash collectors and baristas.

And the next revolution will simply take half if not all those credentialed jobs away. I’m seeing this already: I live in a university town and I know too many people cleaning and serving coffee with nursing and teaching degrees because they have the credentials, but all the jobs are taken, and if you don’t get the (rare) probationary year jobs you will miss out as in a year the following crop of graduates will undercut you for the same position.

You now need to have a certain degree of flexibility and the ability to continually relearn and improve. This is built into my family: My father still teachers (relieving, in sink primary schools, in his 80s) and also understands liquid nitrogen and how to clone cows, preserve sperm and do high tech cattle breeding: my brother’s main qualification is his heavy transport licence but has taught himself how to sell and administrate as he has become more senior in his firm, and I’ve leveraged my clinical skills by continually staying close to the bleeding edge on meta analytic techniques.

Because the generic degree is now without utility. What matters is skills.

Employers want skills, rather than credentials.
There may have been a time when a credential had a tight correlation with a skillset that an employer sought in a new hire, but that has weakened over time, given the dynamic nature of most jobs, and the dilution of rigor in attaining the credential that most degrees have become. Furthermore, technology makes many skillsets obsolete, while creating openings for new ones. With the exception of those with highly specialized advanced degrees, very few people over the age of 30 today, can say that the demands of their current job have much relevance to what they learned in college, or even what computing, productivity, and research tools they may have used in college. Furthermore, anyone who has worked at a corporation for a decade or more is almost certainly doing a very different job than the one they were doing when they were first hired.

Hence, the superstar of the modern age is not the person with the best degree, but rather the person who acquires the most new skills with the greatest alacrity, and the person with the most adaptable skillset. A traditional degree has an ever-shortening half-life of relevance as a person’s career progresses, and even fields like Medicine and Law, where one cannot practice without the requisite degree, will not be exempt from this loosening correlation between pedigree and long-term career performance. Agility and adaptability will supercede all other skillsets in the workforce.

Google, always leading the way, no longer mandates college degrees as a requirement, and has recently disclosed that about 14% of its employees do not have them. If a few other technology companies follow suit, then the workforce will soon have a pool of people working at very desirable employers, who managed to attain their position without the time and expense of college. If employers in less dynamic sectors still have resistance to this concept, they will find it harder to ignore the growing number of resumes from people who happen to be alumni of Google, despite not having the required degree.

It is better to look at open source to see the future. It does not matter who you are, what matters is your code. You do not even have to be a nice human being: you have to be able to code and deliver. Your credentials are as useful as your suit: you may need it for the interview, but once you are there what matters is what you have done.

In short, what your peers think of your productivity, your code.

What cannot be made generic, what requires judgement. All else will not be outsourced, because even low wage people are expensive. It will be automated.

Peak Education.

My sons are brilliant guerilla teachers, and it works for son two’s favour. Son one — who is more analytical, does a course, keeps his notes, and tutors son two. They have shared goals. They learn, like I did, despite their teachers, rather than because of their teachers.

Now I pay a lot of rates (property tax) to live in my part of town and send the boys to a fairly elite single sex school. But the quality of teachers is about the same as it was for me: the difference is that in my school in a working class/ lower middle class suburb we still had the reading list of an elite school — from Cicero and Caesar (in the original) to James Joyce. The quality of textual material young men and women are exposed to has moved from interesting — Kipling, Caesar, Pope, Dickens… to YA dreck such as the hunger games.

It is enough to want to teach informally whenever possible.

Roosh is about 20 years younger than me. He reflects on his education, in the USA, at considerable cost to his parents and taxpayer, and finds it wanting.

But besides the scientific method, it was all for nothing. I say that without exaggeration—not a single lecture, factoid, graph, or equation I’ve learned in school has been marginally useful in my life since graduating 14 years ago. Even when I was employed as a microbiologist, more than 90% of what I used at work was learned through practical on-the-job training. I’m confident that at 15 years of age I could have done the same job as at 25, especially since I was essentially a glorified assembly line worker in the manner at which I conducted experiments handed down to me by my superiors.

What percentage of men in the past completed a formal education? Compare that with today’s perverse obsession to educate everyone using a one-size-fits-all model that jams facts into people’s ears as if force feeding someone on hunger strike. It’s no surprise that the only thing that accomplishes is creating adults who are good at basic trivia but not at solving problems or generating useful ideas. You can not educate thought into someone. You can not create a great thinker or an intellectual out of thin air. Education destroys original thought and muddles great minds, and mainly excels at creating zombies who march in step with all the other automaton…

If I have a son, he will receive a classical education from a dedicated tutor at no more than two hours a day. The rest of his time will be spent exploring nature, music, athletics, woodworking, art, and of course, the scientific method. The goal is not to fill his head with information and facts in the hopes that one day it will aid him, but to give him the tools and mental framework to tackle any problem he will face in life while allowing him to develop passions that make it all worth living. My education didn’t do that for me and for many other men, and what a regrettable waste it has been for us.

Now, if education was useless we could tolerate it. But it is more than useless: it is dangerous, to one’s sanity. Teaching has always been a place where men who are overly lustful for teenage flesh of either gender: but now women are getting in on the act, or being caught: one recalls that Simone de Bouvier seduced young women and then pandered them to Sartre, her inamorata.

Firstly, it’s boring. I have a master’s (Grade 19) and a fellowship (Probably grade 25  or 30), and I now have a Pavlovian response to slide shows. I fall asleep.

It might lend a degree of credibility to my role as my children’s primary educator if I could report that I dropped out of high school for reasons of virtue, perhaps to pursue a rigorous course of self-directed study in thermonuclear engineering or to dig wells in some impoverished sub-Saharan village. But the truth is, I left public school because I was bored to the point of anger. To the point of numbness. To the point of rebellion.

Day after day I sat, compelled to repeat and recite, and little of it seemed to have any bearing beyond the vacuum of the classroom. Everything I learned felt abstract and standardized. It was a conditional knowledge that existed in separation from the richly textured world just beyond the school’s plate-glass windows, which, for all their transparency, felt like the bars of a prison cell.

Peter Gray knows just how I felt. Gray, a Boston College psychology professor who wrote the 2013 book Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life, is unsparing in his criticism of compulsory education. “Children are forced to attend school, where they are stripped of most of their rights,” he says. “The debate shouldn’t be about whether school is prison, because unless you want to change the definition of prison, it is. School deliberately removes the environmental conditions that foster self-directed learning and natural curiosity. It’s like locking a child in a closet.”

Secondly, it can be abusive. Either physically (being locked in the quiet room), emotionally — being informed that your wishes and interests have no place in school, or sexually, given the number of male and female teachers who have been caught sexually exploiting the cheerleaders or Football squad (heterosexually and, more frequently now, homosexually) are approaching or exceeding the numbers of children scarred by the pedophilic priest scandals.

If I was in the USA I would be in a huge bind. I agree with Instapundit: sending your child to a US state school is placing them at risk. But I’m a solo Dad, and the Kiwi habit of leaving work on time (taking it home if needed) is not part of the US corporate culture. I’m home in time to undo the damage done by the school over dinner.

I have seen what the Canadian system has done to young people as I have relatives there, and I will no further: Libel is such a hard charge to defend. However, I do have boys who are going through the NZ educational system. One that is deeply flawed. People are graduating high school without the skills needed for maths or physics (which rules out almost all the sciences), and without the ability to write a coherent argument. (I think you fail if you do this, given the current marking schedules). And there are memes about continuing to acquire credentials as some kind of perverted proxy measure for being an independent and mature adult.

What should we do? Well, for many of us, it is too late. The kids are in the school system, and we are up to our necks in debt paying for that house in a good school zone. But I would argue that is a mistake my generation has made.

Instead, I would go rural: live where the housing is cheaper, keep the budget minimal, so that when you have children one can work and one can raise. (Or both work part-time). The current generation is dysfunctional: this is the fruit of a long progressive walk through the institutions. So, instead, make like Lenin and vote with your feet. You have naught to lose but status and debt: your children have nothing to lose but their chains.

Against NZ Apartheid: Reblogged from Whaleoil

Don Brash is one of the few people who have led two political parties in NZ: he was at one point the leader of the opposition, and then the leader of ACT, a libertarian party that supports the Conservative-ish government. Cameron Slater asked him for a copy of a speech he gave a couple of days ago about the current issues, where people are arguing that the treaty of Waitangi (which ceded soverignty to the British Crown) means the indigenous should have special rights and roles.

His argument against this form on NZ Aparteid is fairly comprehensive. Reblogged: go to the link for the comments.


Thanks for inviting me here today, and for the opportunity to comment on what Gareth has said. I didn’t see the speech in advance of course, so these comments are just immediate reactions based partly on what Gareth said a few days ago in a speech to a Ngapuhi audience.

Let me say first that there are some of Gareth’s views with which I agree. He said in his Ngapuhi speech that he is opposed to separate Maori electorates, Maori wards (and by implication the Maori Statutory Board in Auckland) and quotas for Maori in educational institutions. Granting any group special rights is contrary to Article 3 of the Treaty he said, and I totally agree with that.

It’s also patronising, and implies that Maori aren’t quite competent enough to have their voices heard in the political arena without a special leg up. Of course that is nonsense: when I was in Parliament, there were 21 Maori in Parliament – roughly the same percentage of Members of Parliament as Maori are in the wider population – only seven of them elected in the Maori electorates. The other 14 were elected in general constituencies or were placed in a winnable position on a party’s list.

Similarly in Auckland: the first election of councillors after the super-city was established in 2010 saw three people of Maori descent elected – not in Maori wards but on their own merits – and again three Maori out of a total of 20 councillors meant that Maori on the Council were in roughly the same proportion as Maori in the general population.

But as explained in his Ngapuhi speech his basic position seems to be that –

“.. the Treaty is whatever a reasonable person’s view of the following four taken together leads them to – not any one taken in isolation, but all taken together:

  • Treaty of Waitangi
  • Te Tiriti O Waitangi
  • Principles of the Treaty
  • Post-1975 Consensus on the Treaty.”

And I think that that is a nonsense. The so-called principles of the Treaty have often been referred to, frequently in legislation, but have never to my knowledge been fully explained, let alone agreed. And to refer to a “post-1975 consensus on the Treaty” is again a meaningless concept – I know of no such consensus, and the whole reason for the ongoing debate is that there is no consensus about what the Treaty means, or should mean.

In one of his Herald articles recently he talked about Maori having a partnership with the Crown, making us, in his words, “one nation, two peoples”. I also think this is nonsense, Lord Cooke notwithstanding. The idea that Governor Hobson envisaged the British Crown – the representation of the most advanced country in the world at the time – forming a partnership with a disparate group of Maori chiefs who were, at that time, scarcely out of the Stone Age, is ludicrous.

So I disagree with Gareth’s starting point, and as a result I disagree with many of his conclusions.

I think making the teaching of te reo compulsory in primary school, as he advocates, would be a complete waste of valuable teaching time for most New Zealand children, many of whom can’t even read and write well in English – which is not just the dominant language of New Zealand but is also the dominant language of the whole world. Being able to read and write in English is of fundamental importance to all New Zealanders, whatever their ancestry. And yes, there may be merits in terms of brain development in learning a second language at an early age, but if a second language is to be learnt it should be one which would be of benefit in the wider world, such as Mandarin or Spanish. (Interestingly, I took part in a Maori TV programme a few years ago, on a panel of six people discussing whether te reo should be a compulsory subject in primary school. Even though I was the only non-Maori on the panel, the panel voted by clear majority against making the teaching of te reo compulsory.)

And the idea of having an Upper House with 50% of its members being Maori strikes me as utterly absurd, and totally at odds with any concept of democracy.

Many of our problems today stem from the way in which Te Tiriti O Waitangi – the real Treaty, which Maori chiefs signed – has been reinterpreted to suit the desires of modern-day revisionists. But its meaning is totally unambiguous.

The first clause involved Maori chiefs ceding sovereignty to the British Crown, completely and forever. And there can be not the slightest doubt about that. That Maori chiefs understood that at the time is abundantly clear from the speeches made by the chiefs themselves, both those in favour of signing and those opposed to it. This was further confirmed by a large number of chiefs at the Kohimarama Conference in 1860, and confirmed again by Sir Apirana Ngata in 1920.

The third article of the Treaty provided that all Maori – “tangata Maori, katoa o Nu Tirani” – should receive full citizenship rights – and this included the many slaves of other Maori, most being held in abject conditions and often the victims of cannibal feasts. Today, we tend to see this clause as no big deal but in 1840 it was an extraordinary thing for the Queen’s representatives to offer – nothing similar happened for the Australian aborigines, or the American Indians. All Maori, no matter their status, were offered the “rights and privileges of British subjects”, putting them on a par with every other British subject – not, it may be noted, ahead of other British subjects but on a par with them.

The second clause is what has caused so much angst. Actually, the clause is redundant since all it does is guarantee the right of citizens to own private property, and British subjects have this right anyway. But note that the guarantee was made to all the people of New Zealand – “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” – in clear distinction to the third article which specifically applied only to Maori – and “all” means “all”. In other words, rights of ownership were guaranteed to all New Zealanders, not just to those with one or more Maori ancestors.

There is ongoing debate about what “tino rangatiratanga” meant at the time but it is impossible to believe it meant what modern-day revisionists try to take it to mean. Why on earth would Hobson have asked Maori chiefs to sign a Treaty involving the complete cession of sovereignty in the first clause if the second clause contradicted that first clause?

Let me say that I have always supported the payment of compensation by the Crown to any New Zealander, Maori or non-Maori, who can establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that their property has been illegally confiscated by the Crown. There are clearly suspicions that some of the claims which have been settled in recent times have in fact been settled on several previous occasions, and that brings the settlement process into disrepute. But in principle nobody can object to the Crown paying compensation to any New Zealander whose property has been illegally confiscated.

So in summary, I like the Treaty: it is a very simple document recording the cession of sovereignty by the Maori chiefs who signed it; extending to them in return the full rights of British subjects; and guaranteeing to all New Zealanders the right to own property.

But it does not require us all to learn te reo; it does not provide for separate Maori electorates or Maori wards; it does not give Maori a power to veto RMA resource consents; it does not give Maori any preferential rights over natural resources; and it certainly provides no basis for an Upper House with half its members being Maori.