People like to take stabs at random stuff on Facebook. Capitalism is one of them:

I propose, that as we're now in the early 21st century, we get beyond Marxism and Capitalism, who in many cases are remarkably similar in their view of man as just an economic animal motivated by greed or material concerns. Capitalism can be dynamic and has its positive attributes, but unfettered and taken out of a communal (national) context, it is a recipe for disaster, not to mention the fact that growth, development, and expansion of markets cannot go on for infinity. There are limits to growth, resources, and the abilities of societies to sustain these, socially and ecologically. What is the solution? Quite frankly, a synthesis of the better elements of capitalism and socialism.

I've covered this before, but let's rewind:

1. Capitalism in itself doesn't carry any intrinsic values. It's all about how you implement the system. The values of X nation will then guide that process. You can have a nation worshiping Hindu gods and still have a free market economy.

2. Where do you think concern for material standard is the highest? In a country where people are pretty well-off, or when people struggle just to get food for the day? Trust me, you'd be pretty concerned about money and material things if you lived in a shit hole.

3. Why would a synthesis of capitalism and socialism be superior to capitalism, when socialism has a terrible historical track record? It failed, everywhere, and is still failing in those European countries where it's blended with capitalism.

Let me repeat that: we are consuming ourselves to death, not because of capitalism, which is only a method of managing an economy, but because our values conflict with reality. If you hammer yourself on the finger every time you try to build a house, would you blame the hammer, or your own damn incompetence? It's so 20st Century to rail against capitalism, a superior economic system that triumphed all of its rivals, and came out as the most sensible way of maintaining competition and personal liberties.

You don't want the government to own your property, and you don't want it to own almost everything you produce. Be glad that you're living in a capitalist society, promote sensible values, and make the best of life. You'll be happier that way. Or, move to North Korea. Good luck!

It seems to me that most political groups in Europe are based on the principle of working against anyone and anything successful. If you have a lot of resentment and hate inside, here's a brief summary of historically successful groups you can direct your hate against:

- Whites
- Heterosexuals
- Middle class
- Christians
- Muslims
- Neoconservatives
- Americans
- Israelis
- Capitalists
- Rich people

Wait, did I just create a new movement for Communists and Neo-Nazis? Well, since they're so marginalized on their own, why not create a common party and simply declare war against successful people? It could become the most successful movement in Europe.

This always beats me about white nationalists: white people are expected to be in top positions of society because they've got high IQ. This is cheered and seen as one reason to why one should become a white nationalist. But when someone points out that Ashkenazi Jews also are leading within science, economics and politics because they've got a general IQ of 112-115, which is 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the European average, it's supposedly because Jews are evil and are trying to take over the world. Yeah, right.

Why don't we just face the scientific facts? Eastern European Jews are highly intelligent, as a group even smarter than East Asians, and have a culture of intellectual discipline and excellence. They're supposed to be on the top. White nationalists additionally suggest Jews are on top to destroy Europe. But if you take a second look, white Europeans are generally leftist-oriented, vote for liberal socialism, believe in some soft form of multiculturalism, and love American Hollywood culture. Europeans believe in self-destruction, because that's been the dominant paradigm since WWII. All of our current leaders praise this development. Since Western Jews, both American and European, are liberal-oriented, they're going along with that meme, just like the average whitey is.

European white nationalism is an expression of how deep we're in this shit now. We're so neurotic that we blame a small "Jewish" (Israel is almost as multicultural as Russia) island for our own problems, and call it nationalism. The truth is that Israel, apart from American support, is completely alone in its struggle for survival and couldn't be in worse condition. That's why it breaches UN agreements and vote in extremists in office. In Europe many Jews don't dare to go out in public, in case a leftist gang accuses them of being Nazis or a group of Arab Muslims harass them for...well, being Jewish.

Whitey, your problem is not a Jew, but self-destructive behavior and a lack of civil confidence. Clean your house or shut the hell up.

When America and Soviet Russia were battling during the Cold War with arms races and space exploration, the conflict centered around raw power ("realpolitik"). The nation with the biggest nukes, best astronauts and most influential political power was going to win out. America won the battle and stepped up as a Western super power, eventually establishing what some refer to as Pax Americana today (they're only partly right; America isn't outright controlling other nations like the Roman Empire did).

Now the cards have slightly changed. The most dominant powers on the planet today increasingly don't just strive to build up military, economic and political mojo. They dominate through the will to use that mojo and force itself anally on any weaker enemy coming its way. Think of North Korea. A tiny, impoverished remnant of Communism, not even able to feed its own people. Yet it defies the international community by firing off a series of missiles, allegedly for "testing purposes." If one of those missiles hit America, we don't know. All we know is that Kim Jong's got the balls to suggest he might.

The foreign threats to the Western civilization today are pretty lame in terms of raw power. Neither Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Russia nor other unstable nations who are constantly in conflict, either with themselves or perceived enemies, stand little to no chance against a military West. Yet a handful of people can orchestrate an attack against WTC in America and set off bombs in Europe. How come? Because on the inside, we are weak. Take a look at this chart based on recent 9/11 polls:

In America the number of people buying into 9/11 conspiracy theories comprise a mainstream movement:

In world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S. government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93 did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter. The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.

The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.

This is what matters in political and military struggle today. Critics of the Iraq War are right: it doesn't matter how many troops we send to destroy terrorism. We won't succeed. And the reason why is because we are not willing to wage the power in our possession. Instead we turn against ourselves, which is exactly what foreign powers want us to. If you believe this is just anarchistic backfire against the Bush Admin., you're wrong. Europe is the first to go: Islamic fundamentalism (diversity), unsustainable economies (Social Democracy), civil impotence (individualism) and anti-Americanism (ego neurosis).

The West is in decline because it attacks the principles and institutions that build sustainable civilizations: heterosexual family structures, civil responsibility, self-confident cultural traditions, thriving free economies, flexible military power and reverence for the environment. What we've got left is an empty shell, kept alive through increasingly larger but impotent governments, fit for nothing more than to send troops and then apologize for doing it. Our enemies can smell that hypocritical weakness and therefore cease their chance to infiltrate, mock and overthrow our public culture. This is what's left of it:

I wouldn't put it above the Bush admin. to, if anything, allow 9/11 to happen. Though who knows. The USS liberty was a false flag operation, MKULTRA really happened, and operation northwoods was on the table until JFK wouldn't go along with it. So who knows? Or cares if some of Paul's fans subscribe to such theories?

Kill off millions of people? Wouldn't shock me if that was talked about by "global elites." Hell, you talk about it, and you're a nobody in the scheme of things. Not as difficult to see the people with real power feel that way. Not that I believe it is true, but it is possible, especially since humanity enjoys playing the "pat yourself on the back" game.

Instead of believing in ourselves, our society and our culture, we choose dogmatic theories created to undermine our very existence. It's up to scientists (not nerdy teens living in mom's basement, producing 9/11 documentaries after school) to determine how 9/11 really happened. What is happening right now is the following: the public mistrusts both itself and society. In the mean time, we're being outbred, outbombed and outsourced by people who'd like to see us serve under their rule. The public's right--there's a conspiracy set out to destroy the West. And it's orchestrated by the crowd.

While the West is busy hating itself, Russia, China and other former super powers are building civilizational confidence to increase their competition on the world political map. It's no surprise that we at Corrupt have a few less admirable things to say about the West as it is today. But we're also hopeful and positive about society in general. A contradiction? Let me recap why the current Western status quo should be criticized, but still is both dominant and pleasant to live by:

Liberal democracy: Before the New World Order (pre-WWII) Europe was a collection of dictatorships, which later transformed into socialist Fascist States. During that time we saw a lot of tragedy, including economic collapse and genocide. Yeah, democracy sucks, but looking at history, it's no wonder our leaders wanted to abandon the old way of managing government.

Capitalism: Admittedly, capitalism has its problems. Yet we tried out socialism, in different extremes, and we saw that it completely failed wherever it was implemented. What happened when nations around the world, almost exclusively under Anglo-American leadership, began adopting a (mostly) free market principle? They quickly escaped mass poverty and low standard of living. Today not even hardcore-socialist countries like Russia and China really believe in a planned economy.

Multiculturalism: Even the Nazis get this one; we're living in a mass-communication society today. Regardless if you don't believe in bringing in lots of people into your country, your culture cannot avoid being influenced by foreign cultures, rendering cultural patterns dynamic and ever-changing. That diversity of ideas and lifestyles, one way or another, will exist also within pretty homogeneous cultures is a mark of the age.

NWO: Sure, it exists, a New World Order. Why so many people resent it is baffling, because never before has so many people in the world enjoyed such a high standard of living under extremely humane conditions. Maybe that's a problem in itself, but there's a reason to why the West won the Cold War, and why everyone else suspiciously is trying to emulate its development.

I see many libertarian-leaning Conservatives arguing in the following way:

1. Humans are selfish by nature.

2. For society to work, people need to contribute to each other.

3. Therefore we need to construct a society where the selfishness of individuals benefit one another.

So, selfishness basically leads to altruism, given that all people have an equal opportunity of making such contributions. There are a few problems with this line of arguments. #1 can be questioned, now that we better understand the evolutionary function behind altruism. So can #3; does self-investment always result in collective benefits?

The real virus in libertarianism is tragedy of the commons, or the idea that positive action taken by individuals alone may harvest negative consequences for the group as a whole. The environmental problems we face today are a good example of that. Sure, it's good to expand the economy and produce new goods and services, especially for individuals who want to secure a good standard of living. But the altruism only works within that human system, or market, if you will. What lies outside of it? Added together: water pollution, toxic air, extinct species, dying forests and urban sprawl. Chaos.

Libertarians always dodge the green issues, so do most Conservatives, because they only recognize the internal system: the economic market. They don't realize the long-term consequences of our lifestyle, which of course will impact the internal system as well. Therefore this line of thinking, I argue, is not long-term viable, because similar to the welfare State, it assumes we can endlessly consume resources without the system itself ever being effected by the consequences of that consumption. Margaret Thatcher famously said that "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" - today we know this is just as true about our environment.

Like Frank and many others who are Right-oriented and just want to get on with our lives without bureaucrats making life more troublesome, I supported Ron Paul's cause for the American presidency. I still do, kind of. Ron Paul's campaign was simply amazing, but then it quickly regressed into pure conspiratorial extremism. Today only his dogmatic fans listen to what he's got to say. What happened?

Ron Paul's world view is a Conservative libertarian critique of all forms of organized authority. This led him to become a strong critic of globalism. Many of us signed up for it--who wants commerce to become a religion? The problem was that Ron Paul's grass roots gradually transformed into anti-globalists with a totally different agenda. Alex Jones became a frequent interviewer, the 9/11 Truth movement took interest in him, and Israel critics followed his campaign. If you're an alienated candidate like Ron Paul, you try to consolidate whatever agreements you have with other alienated groups. Bad idea, Ron.

Bad, because looking back in the mirror, what became of it? Conspiracy theories melted with extreme anarchism, and occasionally, anti-Semitism. His fans spammed YouTube with insane ideas about the Bush Administration planning 9/11 (since long debunked by scientists), evil capitalists plotting to take over the world and kill off millions of people (I wish), and perhaps most controversially, how all of this tied in with Israel and Jews. Maybe Half-Sigma did have a point about Ron Paul being an anti-Semite, after all.

After Ron Paul's campaign became more and more centered around these topics, it was clear that the conspiratorial element had become dominant. It alienated common people who just believed in the Constitution or wanted a thin government installed, and it drew lots of crazy young people whose only political message was that America and Israel are evil and "true" capitalism will solve all problems. Ron Paul became a symbol for marginalized extremism made mainstream. For this he probably served an important purpose, but it also was a major factor in the end of his career. Ron Paul is still one of the sanest political leaders in America right now, but due to his involvement with these groups, it's questionable whether he really would have been a better President than, say, McCain.

André Gide liked to scandalize enquirers by saying: "Je ne suis pas tapette, monsieur, je suis pédéraste!" ("I am not a fairy, Sir, I am a pederast!") In a similar spirit I am sometimes tempted to assert: "I'm not really a conservative — more of a reactionary." It's not true, though. I wonder if it really can be. It is all very well to speak of standing athwart history crying "Stop!" but history will not stop, and there are some respects in which even the most sincerely conservative of us would not wish it to.

John Derbyshire asks a good question - how can one claim to be a reactionary in today's world? There are good reasons why reaction is tempiting and we might want the world to be like it used to, at least in some ways. One recent GNXP post describes how many of our instincts are poorly adapted to living in a free economy and electing our rulers - an idea I've mentioned before. That doesn't necessarily mean we should live in a world like the one we are adapted to, though - a few days earlier another post on GNXP reminded us of how that world really sucked in a lot of ways compared to what we have today. That makes for some chaos and confusion, but I'd rather deal with that and (to pick an easy example) be able to eat five kilos of meat a week, you know? It sure as hell is worth it.

I do like to call myself a reactionary, though. I like to complain about the American Revolution and the October Revolution in the same breath. That doesn't mean I want to live in the world before the American Revolution, but I think a world in which the rebels lost that one would be a better world. I might not be a "true" reactionary, then, only a political one. As Mencius Moldbug once wrote, "I feel no hesitation in informing you with absolute confidence that the common concept of progress, which perhaps you are operating under, is a lie and a delusion and a snare. At least inasmuch as that term applies to the problem of human government, and not physics, oil painting, or backgammon. There is no reason to think the political designs of 2007 are any better than those of 1907, 1807, or 7."

I like progress. I like the modern world. I just don't like progress in politics, that's all. I don't think there's any contradiction there. After all, many of the most progressive progressives are extremely reactionary when it comes to everything except politics.

One of the less important side effects of the tragic earthquake in Haiti is that the word "voodoo" is popping up in the press more than usual. Or is it? Nowadays the Western press seems to spell it "voudou" instead. Steve Sailer suspects that it's intended to keep us masses ignorant of inconvenient facts. I disagree, though. When it comes to guessing the motivations of progressives, I would like to add something to Napoleon's famous maxim - never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by changing fashions.

The reason why journalists and other elite types are starting to use the word "voudou" is to let us know that they read enough newspapers and hang out with enough of the right people to know what the latest trendy spellings are, and also to let us know that they care about other cultures enough to use native spellings instead of Anglicized ones. They used to accomplish this by referring to Peking as "Beijing", but now that everybody does that (except for Chinese restaurants) it no longer sets you apart from the herd, so they need to find some new words to do the job. It's no different than the shifts in fashionable teenage slang, really, and is the exact same reason why they suddenly started referring to health care as "healthcare".

Progressivism really makes much more sense as a method of signaling than as an ideology, doesn't it?

As a side effect of the global warming soap opera, I have learned that the United Kingdom has a National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism. I would have figured that the British government would be against extremism, but I guess they're not only for it, they've even got a guy coordinating the stuff!

If I lived there I'd be worried.

In two seemingly unrelated posts, Sofia wonders if environmental orthodoxy seems to be self-contradictory, while Alex observes that leftist ideology is good for your self-esteem. I think the former flows directly from the latter.

Most ideologies are a way of describing how the world works and how it should be run. They provide their followers the opportunity to gain power and prominence when they succeed in ruling some part of the world. If your faction loses the civil war or the election, though, you pretty much get nothing out of being a member. Progressivism is unique in that its positions are not a worldview but a set of signals. By taking progressive positions on various issues, you let others and yourself know that you're smart, compassionate, classy and so on. Just about any progressive position is much easier to explain in terms of signaling than in terms of philosophy or politics. For example, the support for mass immigration makes you seem compassionate towards peasants from poorer countries and smart and skilled enough that they won't compete for your job. Sure, your own underclass will pay for your compassion, but that's OK - you can then signal compassion for them by supporting education. That might seem contradictory or ineffective, and that might be true if we thought of this as policy goals. When understood as signaling, though, these positions are coherent and effective.

That's why progressivism is so popular and victorious - it helps its followers gain status even when it doesn't achieve crap or makes the world a worse place. Of course it's not quite that simple. Sooner or later even the peasants figure out that caring about Brazilian rainforests is nice - anyone under the age of 30 probably learned about that in school, plus we have big TVs with all those nature channels. Caring about it does you little good when everyone else cares, too, so status-seeking progressives must constantly find new issues to support. Again, this is where mass immigration is the perfect progressive issue - because your own peasants suffer most of the negative consequences, it'll take them a longer time to get around to supporting it compared to some foreign rainforests that won't affect their lives much.

The upside of this constant forward movement is that unlike status-signaling fashion in clothes and cars, progressivism is not a cycle. That's good - otherwise progressives would impose prohibition on us every 20 years...

That's basically why progressivism succeeds, why it must keep progressing, and why it's ultimately not self-contradictory. But isn't this post full of hypocrisy? I mean, given the understanding that progressive views are good for one's status, why am I so reactionary? It's certainly not integrity, honesty or principle.

As someone who considers things philosophically, I get annoyed when people consider legitimate, stand-alone issues as necessarily political. Environmentalism has been the sexiest, new issue on the agenda to be co-opted by the left, placing anyone who does not identify with partisan politics as opposed to environmentalism.

Ridiculous for a host of reasons, but mostly how leftist partisan politics concerning environmentalism is rife with contradiction. For instance, another en-vogue issue is third world development, but I ask to what degree? Environmental and economic sustainability is not possible if everyone lived as decadently as the Western world, but raising this glaring issue is mostly met with emotivist, empathetic responses.

I won't claim to be an authority on the matter, but I wonder why third world development is an inherently positive thing. For example, a mutually beneficial exchange would occur if Western influences were withdrawn from the African continent. A continent ridden with tribalism, and a concomitant culture that does not value rationality, does not stand to gain anything from adhering to a capitalist structure. Nor do we in the developed world, stand to gain anything from industrializing and pumping empty resources someplace that does not even possess an infrastructure of sorts. Logically, environmentalism cannot exist as a priority if simultaneously third world development also exists as a priority.

We know how financial bubbles work, and I've been thinking... can there be such a thing as a prestige bubble? Here is the scenario: some group of people gains status beyond what they are actually worth, expectations grow unrealistic, more and more social and political capital is invested in these status-boosting games, and then the whole thing collapses as everyone laughs at the naked emperors. It's basically a bubble in investments denominated in the fuzzy currency of social status. I could argue that investment bankers have gone through such a bubble in recent years.

I know some people have suggested that there is a financial bubble growing right now in the field of education. Even the Chronicle of Higher Education has published an article which pretty much says that the educational sector with the most influence on social policy - graduate school in the humanities - is not just a bubble but an outright pyramid scheme. I suspect that there might be an even more important prestige bubble happening to the prestige of an Ivy League degree. Here are a few quotes from posts Arnold Kling has made this week:

I think that people can legitimately complain that the educated class that dominated Wall Street and Washington first made the mortgage mess and then railroaded through a bailout in which a transfer of wealth from main street to Wall Street was marketed as a benefit to main street. The educated class is losing the respect of the rest of America for reasons that are well deserved.

Harvard types believe that they are smarter than markets. And, at this moment in history, the Harvard narrative is that the financial crisis was caused because of blind faith in markets regulating themselves. According to this narrative, the election was a mandate to Harvard to deal with huge market failures in finance, health care, aggregate demand (hence the stimulus), and climate/energy. Based on this narrative, Harvard is absolutely committed to expert control over the economy

That certainly sounds like the status of "Harvard types" - people educated at the best American universities - is inflated, and being furiously inflated further. These are the people who, in practice, rule the world. What if the bubble pops and their status quickly sinks to the level of, say, computer programmers before bottoming out? I'd say "sinks to the level of fry cooks", but that would just be wishful thinking on my part...

Let's just face it: most people identify with a certain ideology because it makes them feel good about themselves. Leftists are on a high when they defend the rights of immigrants and poor people, liberals secretly stroke themselves while talking about equality...what about us?

The problem for Conservatives have always been that we've been accused of being selfish. How can we feel good about ourselves at all? Most polls indicate we're simply pleased with the way things are. Here's an additional suggestion: because we care about our families and ancestors.

Doing what's right and living your life the traditional way means you please your parents and the people who came before you and believed in the same values. Liberals and leftists might do good for the no-gooders, but we Conservatives do good for the people that raised us and the traditions that taught us important lessons about life. I think that's a good reason to feel good about what you believe in.

A lot has been written about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the Underwear Bomber. People tend to write a lot about you when you try to blow up an airliner these days. One thing I haven't read, though, is liberatarians saying how happy they are. Not with the bombing attempt, of course, but with the way it failed. I mean, sure, centrally planned government security failed to stop it, but the unplanned free market provided a solution which seems to have cost a lot less and work a lot better than the government's attempts.

Isn't this powerful evidence that individuals free to make their own decisions unrestrained by central planning do everything better than government?

Listen to this US Air Force Lt suggesting we strip search all young Muslim males at airports:

What's outrageous about the suggestion? The fact of the matter is that, although liberals and libertarians would like to believe otherwise, individuals belonging to certain groups behave in certain ways. We're not all the same, but there are behavioral patterns among us. In the case of terrorism against the West, we know the following to be true:

Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.

With this knowledge it makes good sense to profile that demographic to prevent another looming disaster like the one in Detroit. To be a young Muslim man and be strip searched at an American airport doesn't mean you're blamed for what others like you have done. It means you happen to belong to a group that's statistically overrepresented in terrorist acts. If you believe in the security of other Americans, sparing a minute or two might save hundreds, maybe thousands of lives.

Dogma always clouds the judgment of large groups of people. This is why I apply Occam's Razor to shocking news as often as possible: the simplest explanation is usually the best (and it pisses liberals off). When Finnish school shooter Pekka-Eric Auvinen made it to the news, Corrupt was the only place on the web that didn't demonize the boy as a misanthropic maniac.

The truth was, as later revealed by parents and teachers, that Pekka-Eric was a bright student and intelligent individual, but got bullied for it. In the end, like with school shooters Matti Saari and Cho Seung Hui, and recent mass killer George Sodini, there is always a human factor involved in mad acts of violence and terror. Simple madness might trigger a mad act, but the motivation or causes leading up to that act is usually a combination of desperation and alienation from society.

This is not just a psychological issue, but also a political one. When someone tries to blow up an airport in Detroit, how do most people react?

The government bureaucrat apologizes for mindless bureaucratic behavior, but suggests we simply need more of the same to avoid future catastrophes. The business journalist suggests terrorism exists because fundamentalists are maniacs, period. While I find his foreign policy ideas pretty naive, Ron Paul is one of the very few American politicians who understands underlying motivations behind terrorist acts. Organized terrorism is an answer to America's influence as a superpower, just like small tribes occasionally clashed with Rome during its height.

What's even more hilarious about this story is how the suspected Detroit bomb plotters were previously prisoners at Gitmo. Instead of realizing that people like this are too dangerous to let loose and ship home to America, the Obama Administration decided to go the populist, crowd-stroking way once again to cash home popularity. Europe might like it, but we are now also less secure as a result.

Just as easy answers often are good answers, easy solutions are often good solutions. Some people snap because of pressure from society. In some cases, like with many teenage school shooters, we need education reform to make sure we don't leave the intelligent students behind. In other cases, like with fundamentalist Jihadists preaching Islamic warfare with bombs, we need to return with determination and force. The best way to finish a war is to win it.

Everybody wants to call themselves something or be a part of some group. I guess that's how human nature works. But that doesn't mean that whatever group you're part of or what opinions you hold really matter. I argue that much of what people believe doesn't matter at all, either because they don't act on their beliefs, or the ideas they hold simply have no practical bearing on everyday life.

One of the brightest students I met was a hardcore Communist. Every day in class he wore a Lenin suit with the Soviet symbol. Eventually we had a chat and it turned out he was both very friendly and intellectually sharp. When it came down to it, it didn't really matter that I was on the opposite side of the political scale; we pretty much reached the same conclusions about society, and agreed on similar philosophical conclusions.

If you believe evil polar bears are secretly controlling the world, why should I care? If you're friendly, I'll still like you. If you're a dumbass, you're dumb either way.

To be certain, people in general take their beliefs very seriously. I've been attacked several times for the opinions I express publically, but this has less to do with politics and more to do with human psychology. People want to fit in and if they see someone that doesn't, that's a threat to their homogeneous views. And so that person is attacked until it caves in or runs off. It's one of the most horrific features of crowdism, but if you truly understand how pointless it is to go around caring about what other people say or believe, you'll start to look at outcomes, e.g. what really goes on in reality. Let's leave the rest to our dreams.

If you thought I hate smart people (which isn't really true; I just don't want to be ruled by smart, educated people who have class), read this post by Sonic Charmer. He (?) does a good job of defining who these Smart People are, and why being ruled by them sucks.

I don't have much to add, though another of the posts about Smart People reminded me of an old saying: "A gentleman never talks about money - a gentleman simply has it". I'm not a gentleman and don't ever plan to be, but I think the world would be a hell of a lot better if polite society applied that rule not to money but to brains.

HT: Ilkka Kokkarinen

Back when I was living in the American Southwest, I knew a man who went into politics. He ran for the local school board, won the election, and gave up in disgust after one term. What turned him off was the decision-making process - he said the most important factor in all the decisions was not making sure the kids got a good education or that the teachers were happy, but that the schools would avoid lawsuits.

This struck me as strange for two reasons. One, he was a university professor, so he should have had some clue about how educational institutions are run. Two, school districts don't really need to fear lawsuits, do they? I mean, it's not like the local schools can be actually driven out of business by a lawsuit. The law requires them to exist and educate, so even the most hideously expensive lawsuit's costs will just get passed on to taxpayers one way or another. That's not the disaster it would be for a privately owned business that would have to pay with its own money. Besides, many lawsuits aren't aimed at wringing out money but at forcing schools to change some policy or another. However annoying that might be, it can't be much less annoying than preemptively changing the policy in advance of a potential lawsuit.

I finally was able to make sense of this after thinking about the theory that the main value of education is not learning but signaling that you were smart enough to get into a good school and hard-working enough to finish it.

Lawsuits don't really threaten schools' existence or ability to educate, but they do look embarrassing on the news. If the purpose of your school is to give its students the ability to say that they went to a good school, a string of lawsuits just will not do. Remember that this is America, where government-run schools don't have the status that religious or private ones do - only homeschooling, GED or dropping out are worse for your status than a public school education.

The school board was doing the logical thing in a world which values going to a good school more than it values what you learned there. Looking at the politics of education more broadly, we also see why progressives love education so much. After all, if education is mostly about signaling how smart, hard-working and classy you are, and progressivisim is all about signaling about how smart, good and classy you are, they are a natural match. No wonder educational institutions end up filled with and run by progressives.

Too bad I can't ask the former school board member what he thinks of this hypothesis - he died years ago.