Author Archives: engineerdude

About engineerdude

See the 'About' section.

The illiteracy of our age

Some time ago I was participating in a thread on an online forum with a political theme. At some point I made my views known, that, “ultimately, I would prefer a system where the government has zero involvement in the education system; meaning that it would not fund schools as it does now, rather a more ideal system would be one where schools are private and thus encouraging competition, etc”. Someone responded to me by saying “I would have to look far and wide for a worldview as disgusting as yours.”

This person made their support for greater government involvement in all fields of human life very clear. Their response assumes that because I am against “free” education, then I must be against education per se, since I am for privatising it, and thus their fallacy is that not everyone will have the opportunity to be educated in an actual school.

Similarly in another forum, after expressing my condemnation of the education system in my state, another user said to me “You obviously know how to read and write well for all your criticism of the education system that you grew up in”. The comment made me realise that it simply is not about whether you can ‘read and write’ because you can teach anyone to do that, but what it ultimately comes down to is whether you’re taught to think independently, to understand concepts, to critically analyse something, to question, to discover the truth. Simply reading something in a mechanical manner, or writing an essay based on the left-wing views of your teacher in a school funded by the government is nothing to boast about. Many in this state (and other states I suspect), graduate from high school having learned next to nothing; sure they can read and write, thus adding to the high ‘literacy’ percentage of this country, but they’re as educated as a flock of sheep are.

What brought this post on was a quote I just came across by an Alvin Toffler “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” This is quite true, where in the past it was the majority of the population that was illiterate when it came to reading and writing, but today it is the majority that is illiterate in terms of independent thought, of concepts, of reason.

The horrifying thing about being educated in a system that has a bias towards an ideology that does not encourage independent thought, is that children from a young age are conditioned to think in only the set terms that are taught to them. Most will hold these ideas as irrefutable truths well into their adult life and they will be incapable of thinking otherwise, even considering the possibility of something else is so disturbing that they’ll attack such ideas with anger and force.

When I graduated from high school, I can confidently say that the majority of students in my year level were, for lack of a better word, dumb. Many could read and write, yet that was it. Just as a computer program could sound out words and letters to you, so could they. Many of them didn’t even understand a lot of the topics that we were taught in English (and Drama), yet what they still got away from it were the ‘bare essentials’, that is the flimsy ideas you encounter on a daily basis such as “women are inferior because of men”, “the rich are evil”, “capitalism is bad” etc. If I were to assess the reading and writing skills of many of those students today, I would honestly expect to find that they are worse off than when they graduated.

I only know of one other high school that was close to mine, where the curriculum was rather similar, however having had contact with many other people from my generation, and younger ones who have graduated, I still see the same problem everywhere; that is, a lack of independent thinking.

I don’t know what it’s like in other Western nations, nor in other Australian states (though I would wager to say that it is rather similar), nor what it is like in private schools here (though from the many experiences I have had with people who went to a private school, I’d say that it might be marginally better), but I think this problem of illiterate thinking isn’t exclusive to Australia.

For the record, my English skills have always (since primary school) been rather poor, but especially when it came to writing coherent sentences (I attribute this to my non-English speaking background), and to this day I would not be able to explain to you proper English grammar. At the end of the day, it wasn’t the education system of my state that ended up teaching me how to write properly, it was myself since I put it upon my mind to improve my writing skills, my teachers helped me where necessary, but the motivation and effort had to come from me alone.

 

Advertisements

How much longer until a full assault against free speech?

Assuming the current trend continues in the West (and in some places it’s more than half way there), how much longer do we have until a full assault against free speech?

Observe the anti-tobacco smoking lobby and the success it has achieved these past few decades, where we have come to the point that the government has enacted laws to ban smoking in certain areas – whether private property or not – where  the government initiates force against private companies and individuals all in the name of a “common good”. Notice how you don’t see any cigarette ads (at least not in Australia, but I’m assuming in any other Western state)? Notice how we’re taught that cigarettes are unhealthy for us in school? Notice how the general public doesn’t seem to mind in the least that the government can exert such power and force over an industry?

For the record, I realise the health benefits of not taking up tobacco smoking, however that’s not the point of this post. I realise the health benefits of not consuming rat poison, but I don’t need the government to tell me that. The point of this post is the gradual erosion of our rights and how anything can be justified so long as the ends justify the means when the government is the one wielding the sceptre of coercion.

Today we can see the signs all around us of a society slowly falling into a censorship spiral, but the crowning aspect of it all – due entirely to the efforts of the Left – is political correctness. The prime goal of this horrifying notion is to stifle any future thought and thus opinion. People are conditioned to give a second thought to something that they want to say, to assess what the consequences might be if they ruffle the feathers of some group, or person, and so to avoid any potential conflict, the thought is suppressed. Someone oblivious to the notion of political correctness will go ahead and honestly say what they want to, but there is always someone standing guard to put them in their place; lest they dare give voice to any future thoughts.

Recently in Australia there was a case involving a Conservative journalist by the name of Andrew Bolt. He wrote a series of articles in which he legitimately questions why a growing number of Australians whose ancestry is predominantly European (and thus their physical features resembling this background) are identifying as ‘Aboriginal’ or ‘Indigenous Australian’. He mentions a number of prominent people who have attained some sort of political footing, or other prominent positions usually granted by some level of government. Andrew Bolt rightly questioned their true intentions; whether their identification as Aboriginal was for  reasons other than having a sense of an ‘identity’.

Keep in mind that a lot of these people had quite diverse backgrounds, where one woman was raised by an English mother, yet her father was of a Afghan and Aboriginal background. He rightly posed the question whether such people selectively choose a specific ancestry for career or political gain. As it turned out, 9 individuals identifying as Aboriginal (in spite of their completely white complexion) were “hurt, humiliated and offended” (The Age), so they decided to sue Andrew Bolt since he apparently violated some “Racial Discrimination Act”.

What they were after was “…an apology, legal costs, and a gag on republishing the articles and blogs or anything else with substantially similar content, as well as ”other relief as the court deems fit”. They are not seeking damages.” (The Age). Eventually they won. I was following the case at the time and I still cannot quite put into words the disgust and anger I feel as to what transpired in this country. I won’t even touch the “Racial Discrimination Act” since it ought to be obvious to anyone who supports individual rights as to why such a law is immoral. But the fact that these people sought to silence another individual because of what he SAID, now that is just unforgivable and something so revolting that it really angers me to know that some people would go to such extents.

Now take a look at the anti-gun lobby and the recent strides it has made in the US. Obama is no doubt doing some serious thinking whilst he reads children’s letters and, along with the media, continues to appeal to the emotions of the general public. How long until the right to bear arms is either severely limited, or outright scrapped? It’s just another check-box for the Left, and one they’re closing in on. If they succeed in their anti-gun campaign, then free speech won’t be too far off; it will be at this point that I would say “The End” to the Western world.


Why Obama will never go away

When Obama’s term as president finally ends, we will not be spared of his empty, insulting rhetoric. Indeed many presidents before him have enjoyed a certain level of enduring popularity after their term came to an end; but with Obama his popularity will be different. Owing to the fact that the media has done a fantastic job in elevating his status beyond a president; to something of a superhero for whom the masses can look up to in awe and gravitate towards in large crowds to catch a glimpse of this phenomenon whilst donning “Forward” and “Obama” badges, scarfs, beanies and other apparel.

He will be cast in countless documentaries for many years to come, no doubt make countless appearances in Hollywood movies, talk shows such as Letterman, Jay Leno, the View, Oprah, as well as make countless speeches at university graduation ceremonies to standing ovations, and he will go on to appear in many other media. Who knows, maybe he will have his own TV show or network.

If the current trend of the US continues, then when he passes away, he will be remembered even more, if not for his sole contribution to nailing in that last nail in the coffin that is the US, then for the sole fact that he was the first black president since we all know how obsessed the Left is with a person’s skin pigmentation. His image will be elevated even more and those of us who saw him for who he really was will be dismissed as being racist, crazy, close-minded, and a host of other catchy words that the Left uses to censor its opponents.

If the current trend continues, then his speeches and oratory skills will be enshrined as something of a divine quality;  never to be matched by another human being. He will become the new benchmark as to what constitutes a “good president”, a writer, speaker, or simply a human being. All future presidents will be matched up against him, where the media will look back on him in a fervorous manner akin to the way religious zealots hold to their faith, and their final judgement will always be “he’s no Obama”.

Expect to see museums opened in his name, detailing his accomplishments and showing video footage of his exemplary oratory skills where he delivers his awe-inspiring speeches. The Founding Fathers will have been swiped to the side by this time, replaced by the likes of Obama, Bill Clinton and co; their impeccable wisdom will have no doubt brought the country to greater heights. People will look back longingly to the “Obama days” as they will be known; maybe he will be re-defined as a new historical epoch where B.C and A.D will be replaced with B.O and A.O (before Obama and after Obama).

I’ll take it even further by envisioning colossal Obama statues akin to those of antiquity, where there will be daily rituals and offerings. The rituals will be in the form of a collective sacrifice where all who strive to rise up above the rest will be brought down to a common denominator, and the offerings will be in the form of their blood; the signification of their effort to carry a world on their shoulders whilst having the means and resources to hold up the world taken away from them.

Not much will change really; those of us who grind our teeth at the mere mention of his name will continue to do so, whilst those who fawn over him will do it even more so. Our intellectual descendants will rightly condemn him – just as we do today of past presidents/prominent figures – where as the descendants of the non-independent-thought crowd will continue to elevate his image.

I can’t help but to wonder whether Obama actually ‘loves’ all the popularity, media approval, and general public adoration that he gets. I also wonder whether he relishes the fact he will go on to become a prominent historical figure, whereas those who actually matter, those who had a genuine quality to them will not. I wonder whether he wants the fame more than being honest – with himself, the American people and the founding principles of the nation he leads. Well, I don’t exactly ‘wonder’ – I know. A proper president would not strive to attain a celebrity status, instead he would see it as a grave failure on his behalf if the people were to be so uncritically and unabashedly devoted to him in any way. No matter their political views – whether left or right – a good president would not insult the intelligence of his fellow citizens by appealing to their emotions.


What Obama is counting on

Aside from the ignorance that the general public  exhibits, Obama is counting on the producers – who create wealth – to continue to make the money that he denounces as being “too much”, so that he can fund his outrageous programs. He is counting on, or rather hoping, that other wealth creators will come onto the stage so he can have more people to vilify and hence ensure the cycle continues for future generations. He, and many others like him, need a fresh new stock of scapegoats that they can rally the public against in the name of a “common good” where all will be brought down to a common denominator.

The likes of Obama need future generations of producers to want to do what’s best for their lives, to make money, to create wealth, to create something out of nothing so that a snivelling mediocrity such as Obama can then make a claim on their mind, to denounce their productiveness as an evil, selfish thing so that they can then justify even further extortion. An Obama-type person needs the approval of the wider public so they can artificially elevate their self-esteem, so they can have the illusion of confidence whilst denouncing those who do have genuine confidence and self-esteem – traits that could only be obtained by exercising ones mind to produce wealth in whatever field of endeavour.

The person who thinks that they have a right to make a claim on another persons mind is at the very core of their being a primitive savage. The only difference between a stone age savage and a 21st century savage, is that the former exerts physical force, whilst the latter does it from a distance in a cowardly manner through such mediums as directives, bromides and other cheap intellectual stunts.

What the Obama-type of person is not counting on though, is the gradual decline of those producers who are expected to carry a nation on their shoulders. The culture of dependency – encouraged by Obamanites- will go on to stifle any potential producers whom otherwise would have carried this planet into the next century. When the sense of life in a nation is entirely uprooted, the likes of Obama will have nobody to count on, nobody to vilify, to blame for their own mistakes; the only thing they can count on then is how quickly they will die.

Ayn Rand identified the course of the US decades ago:

Politically, the goal of today’s dominant trend is statism. Philosophically, the goal is the obliteration of reason; psychologically, it is the erosion of ambition.

We are living in a time where complete statism is within view, the obliteration of reason is being wrapped up, and worst of all the erosion of ambition is in full force and unashamedly advocated for. Obama is the climax of decades of left-wing ideology and just as he is speeding along towards his socialist utopia, the American people will end up being the victims when he crashes into the immovable wall that is reality.


The decline of the Western world

I was going to make this specifically about the US, but since the downfall of the US will mean the final nail in the coffin of the West, I figured I would make it more broad since it concerns every Western nation.

Like it or not, the Western world is in a state of decline. The civilisation that has made this world possible, that re-discovered reason for a brief transitional period, that made everything that we know possible, from medicine, to technology, to transportation, to space flight, that brought the rest of the world out of the dark ages, is declining.

It has been declining for the past hundred years or so, but in philosophical and cultural terms. This century we see the final nail being nailed in with the economy coming into the arena, where politicians in power, whilst trying to rectify the mistakes of the past by making the problem worse, continue to shorten the leash they have on citizens. The philosophy of altruism has been the reigning doctrine in the West for quite some time now, coupled with the general irrationalism that has permeated just about every facet of life, where successive governments, academics, intellectuals, authors and others, have in one form or another, implemented a policy, made a speech, or wrote a book based on either of these two notions. The altruism is all too visible around us, that is to anyone who is willing to look and think, and the irrationalism is spread out even more in its countless, grotesque forms. Any nation or civilisation cannot sustain such a philosophically and culturally decayed environment for much longer before the economy is effected; and that is what we are witnessing today.

The final sign of a civilisation in decline is the rampant nihilism that takes hold and eventually takes away all and any meaning towards life. This sense of nihilism has existed for quite some time, but the only thing holding it back were the producers – the men and women willing to think and create something out of nothing – they were the buffer, it was on their shoulders that this world was carried on into the next century. Today however, we are witnessing the gradual decline of those producers, where such people who have the courage and vision to move this world are becoming too few and instead being replaced with those who cannot think for themselves, those who have no courage nor vision. Apply this to an entire nation and you have an entire people living for nothing, where the sense of life that once existed is long forgotten and all that remains are monuments – whether skyscrapers, movies or books – to what was once possible and everyone wonders how it all came to be.

The US is the Western worlds only hope, it is the keystone for our civilisation since it is the only nation that knows what that sense of life is, and it is the only nation that, in varying forms, champions individualism. These two notions have been slowly eroded in the past several decades, but to no significant extent; however today we are witnessing an acceleration in that effort to completely remove any sense of life or individualism by such people as those who sit around in Washington D.C gloating and sneering at anyone who dares counter them. The likes of Obama and co are the type of people who subvert the individualism in the culture of a nation by reminding everyone that their achievements are not all that great since it was not them alone that made it happen, rather first and foremost the government, then anyone else who can make a claim on your mind. In essence, our achievements are that of a collective effort made possible by the government. Such an evil notion as negating your own achievements cannot be taken seriously by anyone who has self-esteem, but it is celebrated by anyone who has none, by anyone who does not know what it is to be an individual.

The economies of the West are what is at stake now, where the US and Western Europe teeter on the brink of total economic collapse. This is the end result of decades of altruistic policies – no matter from which side of the political spectrum since both are to blame – and this is the end result of a civilisation with no proper leadership, philosophically and intellectually. We might ‘just get by’, but without any proper reform of our economic systems – meaning laissez-faire capitalism as the system – we will continue to ‘get by’ until one day we find that there is nothing to get by with and we are at the mercy of someone else.

There are a number of explanations to the decline and fall of the Roman empire. One interesting theory that I came across some time ago was that the rise of Christianity coincided with the decline and fall, so I wonder what future historians – assuming the West does fall – will attest the decline and fall of Western civilisation to? There are two options: if the current trend in academia continues, then capitalism will be to blame, otherwise the socialist, collectivist, altruistic philosophies and economic policies of the 20th and 21st centuries will be rightfully blamed.

We have been at a crossroads for a very long time now and I am not one who believes in historical determinism, that every civilisation ‘must’ fall – or that it will eventually – rather I believe in the possibility of reversing the current trend that the West is in, in saving this civilisation from a bleak future because it doesn’t have to be this way. The solution is in ideas, but the right, or rational, ideas. The West needs a major wake up call to reality, it needs the right type of ideas to permeate its schools, newspapers, books, politicians, and once this happens, the Western world will be back on the track that it strayed from long ago.


Another rant on the “gay community”

Out of all the irrationality that comes out of the “gay community”, what annoys me the most is their near automatic, default adopting of anything remotely left-wing for the sole reason that this branch of politics is for “gay rights”. What also annoys me is their lobbying the government to exert force onto its citizens, and only for issues that affect them.

They are heavily involved in anti-discrimination laws and anti-bullying laws, and whilst I can understand the motive (since discrimination and bullying does exist), doing it through force is not the solution. For example, last year in the UK, a Christian couple operating a small hotel (part of which was their actual home) turned away two gay men and it made news when the two men sued and won:

The Bulls were sued over their married-only policy on double beds. They were ordered to pay each of the victims £1,800 in compensation for the ‘hurt and embarrassment they suffered’.

I was outraged at the time to see such a gross violation of property rights, but that term no longer exists in the UK, a country that has produced great thinkers advocating property rights. The only way I can describe the gay couple are as “cry babies”. You can read about it all here.

So in essence, these type of homosexuals go around literally demanding that others accept them, yet when it comes to the others, well it’s a different story. Their basic premise is that it’s ok to use force to achieve your end.

There’s an Australian ad that advocates for anti-bullying of homosexuals. I actually thought it was some joke when I first saw it because it was rather funny, however the end is the best with the police officer talking to a lesbian saying “there are laws to protect you”. But of course, people need laws to protect them against WORDS.

Another example: there’s a show here called “Insight” and it’s basically a discussion show where some controversial topic is chosen, and a host of people from the general public, academics, doctors, whoever can contribute, are selected to discuss the issue. Last year it was something gay-related, and there were two high school girls in their last year, from a private school (Catholic or Anglican, I forgot). They made a huge issue out of the fact that their school prohibited them from going to the formal (prom) together since they were lesbians. They participated in some rally holding signs “our school is homophobic” and it ended up getting some media coverage.

Nobody was even questioning the right the private school had, rather it was all about how the school could accomodate for them, or rather, be forced into accepting their decision to attend the formal as partners. I think it was the principal or some religious representative from the school that was on the show, and he explained very clearly that the school is based on a religion whose scripture does not allow for such relationships. The mediator who conducts the show asked the two girls whether they understood that position, that they basically have a right to deny them their request, yet the response from the two girls was typical trash that most teenagers spout: “Yeah but what about us, what about our feelings, why can’t they accept us?” and then some random middle-aged woman suddenly made a scathing attack against the principal in what was your typical emotional plea. I don’t know what the outcome was nor did I care to find out since it didn’t matter; those two girls will go on to add to the vast and rich pool that is feminazism.

What’s even more pathetic is that so many gay men who ascribe to this philosophy of force look at someone like me in complete bewilderment because I don’t support their campaigns, because I’m against anti-discrimination laws, or any laws that use force against others (speaking in the context of “gay rights”). They see it as some ‘natural’ way of thinking, as something so normal, that it’s ok to exert force onto others. That’s the most disturbing, irrational notion to come out of the mainstream “gay community”, but what’s even more disturbing is that they fail to identify it for what it is.


Some thoughts on the Petraeus scandal

No doubt everyone has heard about this debacle and now other men are involved too. What I found ‘funny’ was thinking about all those religious zealots who go about campaigning against same-sex marriage in the name of “family values”, as if to suggest that heterosexual couples are the only ones who can exhibit these values. Now to be ‘fair’, heterosexual men/women are far more common amongst such positions, so such things are more likely to happen amongst them, statistically speaking. It’s not that I’m saying homosexuals are incapable of such immoral acts, just that it’s pointless to go about seeking government intervention in the lives of others because you claim to represent the sexual orientation of your gender and claim to know what’s best for society.