Who Will Vote Out the Dems? The Moms

Here's an interesting take on our currently "interesting times:" From Rep. Jerry Karl (R-AL):

“This is the factor that they’re missing, and that is the female vote,” he declared. “And this is Jerry’s opinion — the moms. This is what turned out in Virginia. That’s the reason we keep pointing at Virginia. This is going to happen again."

Because now the moms are going to the grocery store to buy food and running into the buzz-saw of 10 percent inflation. And they are going to the gas station to fill up the SUV and gas prices are up by a couple dollars a gallon. 

"Make it stop, Mr. President!"

I know. What did you expect, ladies, when you voted for the Democrats?

But we men really don't understand women, and what makes them tick.

But that's OK. I have been doing the studying for you.

And above all what makes women tick is the need for safety. Thus, women were on-board with the COVID lockdowns and mask mandates in a New York minute.

And that is why women are all in favor of most of the things that the welfare state delivers. It's not because women are greedy, but that women feel the need for all the support they can get. Just in case.

In the old days, all the support she could get was whatever support her husband could deliver. But in the new era all the support she can get is whatever stuff she can get from government, from education to health care to child support.

Unfortunately, of course, unlimited government help for women leads to inflation and disaster. And then women can't get the support they need.

Which is where we are right now, after two years of stupid government pedal-to-the-metal in the COVID response, compounded by the Ukraine idiocy.

Now, I listen to women; I really do. And women are really upset about the horrors in Ukraine. They are not thinking about whether it was a good idea ten years ago to muck about in Ukrainian politics, or whether it is a good idea to muck around with Vladimir Putin. They are not thinking: "Gee, I wonder what Hunter Biden and Burisma and the 'big guy' has to do with this." Or whether the US has any business mucking around in Europe. Or whether we should have troops in Germany seventy-five years after the end of World War II. They only think about the suffering of the women in Ukraine. They do worry a bit about nuclear war, of course.

Enough of inflation. How to understand women and CRT and transgenders in the schools?

My view is that, when you tell women that transgenders are horribly oppressed they will agree. Because kindness.

But when you demand that mothers have no rights in the matter of the transitioning of their children, or in the matter of non-binary sex education in schools, then you have crossed a line. Because safety.

Do you see the point? Women instinctively know they are supposed to be kind. But women instinctively want to keep their kids safe. Kids' safety comes first -- their kids'safety.

I realize that I need to update my maxims on politics and men and women. Up to now:

There is no politics without an enemy.

Women expect to be protected; men know they are expendable.

All very true. Let's add something like this:

For men, politics is defeating the enemy. For women, politics is protecting them from the enemy.

Am I right, or am I right?

Either way, I suspect, we are going to see a big shift in the women's vote this Fall.

Because women expect to be protected, and when the current protector can't or won't protect them, that's when they go get another protector.

But not, of course, among liberal educated women. They still believe everything in the #WeBelieve signs. But that is another story.

The Small Activist Group Problem

The Zman wonders how the keep the place going when "no coherent society is possible on a continent full of people with radically different cultural perspectives."

Really? I'd say there are about two cultural perspectives in America.

1. There are the people that obey the law, go to work, and follow the rules.
2. And then there are small upper-class liberal activist groups that all believe they are saving the world from injustice.

A couple of days ago I was writing about Ron Unz's experience of the activist group phenomenon when he was running a voter initiative to slow down bilingual education in California. He found that bilingual education was driven by activists.

Although the bilingual advocates were relatively few in number, they were fiercely committed to their programs and intensely focused upon that sole, overriding issue, expressing the sort of fanaticism that persuaded far larger organizations to steer clear of any direct conflict.

Now we are in the middle of the "trans" age where gay and trans activist groups are, shall we say, "fiercely committed" to gay and trans normalization in schools.

So here's a piece in Quillette on the issue. Back in the day, LGBT activist groups sued under grounds of discrimination on the basis of sex for "children who’d been diagnosed as gender dysphoric." And a federal judge "proved amenable." Wrote one federal judge:

If left untreated, gender dysphoria may result in serious and debilitating psychological distress including anxiety, depression, and even self-harm or suicidal ideation.

You think, your honor? Or maybe, if nobody talked about gender dysphoria so that it wasn't a thing, nobody would know anything about it and kids would be getting all riled up about something else. Playground bullies gotta bully and Mean Girls gotta Mean Girl. And the kids that aren't bullies or Mean Girls are miserable as usual.

Or let's dive into our favorite 19th century novels. Whaddya think about the kids at Mr Creakle's school for boys in David Copperfield? You think the boys were thinking about anything except avoiding the wrath of Mr Creakle and getting in the good graces of Steerforth? Or whatabout the two teenage girls in Adam Bede? We are talking about Dinah Morris, the saint, and Hetty Sorrel the teenage twerp. So, if you put those two girls into the 21st century I bet that Dinah would have been the perfect girl volunteering at the animal shelter, and Hetty would have got into endless trouble on the gender front like her original at the Manor Farm. Trouble is: there are no Mrs Poysers around any more to straighten out the minds of empty-headed girls and put them to work in the dairy.

Here's an idea. We pass a law that says that gubmint schools cannot discuss sex or gender or discrimination or oppression at all. Or counsel students about sex. Or do anything except teach the 3 Rs.

Yeah, I know. Good luck with that. Ruling classes gotta rule. They gotta remind the peasants who is the lord around here. And one of the ways that rulers rule is by messing with other peoples' kids. Just to show they can.

See, back in the day, the ruling class of the time decided it would be a good thing to have gubmint schools here in the good old USA and teach the Protestant Bible. Because those bloody Irish spoiling the neighborhoods in New York and Boston were crazy Catholics and a cunning gubmint school system could cut the Irish off at the pass. Plus, according to Horace Mann, we could cut crime by 90 percent.

The Irish said, fuggedaboudit, and built their own schools attached to every Catholic church in the land. Indeed, they developed the deeply religious doctrine that I dare say you can find in the Vulgate bible that "first you build the school, then the church." (But you can't find it on Google Search, except on articles by Yours Truly).

See what I mean? Nothing has changed. Back in the 19th century stuck-up Yale and Harvard graduates knew what was best for the hoi polloi and so they used their political power to put a wrench, as they thought, into the primitive ways of the Irish street thug -- not to mention New York's 50,000 "nymphs of the pave."

Today, Yale and Harvard graduates want to indoctrinate kids with LGBT culture. Nothing personal, you understand. Just that activists gotta activate. Otherwise they don't get to live the creative lives that Gaia ordained for them. 

And you were put on this Earth so that activists could activate you into a proper mood of obedience.

I say to liberal activists: Go. Away.

The Problem with Nominating a Weak Candidate for President

I feel for President Biden. I really do. I feel for the Democrats. I really do.

I feel for AOC. Here's her little problem. She thinks that the senior Dems are all sitting around doing nothing but slapping each other on the back and downing some bourbon. But they need to Act Now!

“If the president does pursue and start to govern decisively using executive action and other tools at his disposal, I think we’re in the game,” she said. “But if we decide to just kind of sit back for the rest of the year and not change people’s lives — yeah, I do think we’re in trouble. So I don’t think that it’s set in stone. I think that we can determine our destiny here.”

Guess what Sandy. The reason that Biden and Democrats in general are in trouble is precisely because you chaps in one year have managed to "change people's lives." For the worse. A lot worse.

Americans are in trouble, Democrats are in trouble, lefties like you, AOC, are in trouble because in early 2021 instead of saying: wow, after all the money printing and checks-for-everyone last year with COVID we had better trim our sails and get the economy back on track before we start handing out more loot and plunder.

But no. In order to "change people's lives" dontcha know, you guys passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 with checks for all.

So businesses all across the land found that nobody wanted to hire on to work for them. You think that maybe that is a problem, Sandy?

And now we have inflation roaring into double digits like it did in 1980. Before you were born, Sandy, at the end of 1989.

See, the way I figure, Sandy, you were conceived just after the third GOP president in a row had been elected. Do you understand why? Because in 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected to "make it stop." Meaning inflation and crazy lefties. Then Reagan was reelected in 1984 with a resounding majority to keep that "morning in America" going. Then George Bush was elected, three in a row. That very rarely happens.

And then, on or about your 3rd birthday, Sandy, Bill Clinton was elected president as a New Democrat promising that, hey, we aren't like the spend-and-inflate Democrats of the old days. No siree. We are New. We are Moderate. We are different.

And then, in January 1993, on taking office, Bill Clinton suddenly turned around and said OMG, I just looked at the numbers and things are worse than I thought. So it's going to be pedal to the metal on tax-and-spend. I just hafta.

And do you know what happened next, Sandy? Next was the 1994 midterms when the Republicans won both Houses of Congress for the first time in over 40 years! The GOP gained 54 seats in the House! Imagine! It's easy if you try.

So now President Biden is releasing about a third of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But, but, but! I thought that fossil fuels were Over. That the future was electric cars and buses and wind and solar. 

What's the problem Joey?

Well, we know what the problem is. It is that Joe Biden didn't really "win" the Democratic nomination for president. He was handed the nomination by the wise men of the party. In part because they didn't want Bernie Sanders to be the nominee.

In other words, the wise men of the Democratic Party wanted to run with a man who could be sold as a moderate. Rather than a crazy lefty like Bernie.

Are you still listening, Sandy?

But, because Biden was handed the nomination rather than winning it in a fair fight with all the other candidates, he is weak. He can't stand up and tell the crazies to go fly a kite. And lefties have spending plans from here to eternity.

That's why we have had the budgetary train wreck of the last year, with Democrats trying to pass multi-trillion dollar spending bills when they have a 50-50 Senate and a 222-213 House. You don't get to pass pedal-to-the-metal spending with those kind of numbers. But when the lefty idiots and the Progressive Caucus are demanding action, well the old guard like Biden and Pelosi have to sound the charge and let the young enthusiasts do their Charge of the Light Brigade and learn a bloody lesson. Maybe.

AOC is all upset that the young people that voted for Biden and worked to get him elected are being pushed aside.

Could be. But let's do an Ike and make the problem bigger. Maybe the problem is with lefty ideologues like you, Sandy, and the lefty profs at all the universities, and the lefty media that censors non-lefty content. So that young people Literally Know Nothing, except what they learned from their lefty teachers and the lefty comedians and the lefty social media that censors all non-lefty content.

Maybe, Sandy, you and your pals like Saikat Chakrabarti have flown young people into a box canyon, telling them lies and fantasies about what politics can do for them.

And maybe next year all those young people are going to be wondering what hit them and how come they believed the half-baked lies of people like you, Sandy.

But I expect it will take a while longer before they really start to wonder. People don't just quit a cult the first time it disappoints them. Typically it takes years, because we humans tend to believe our priests and our shamans and our handsome political leaders. Until we are dying on the field or battle or starving in some crazy lefty famine.

Yep. Things don't look to good right now for Sandy and Joey.  But there's a reason for that. It is that Joey is too weak to do the right thing, and Sandy is too stupid.

Just What is a University For?

Stop Press: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is re-instituting consideration of SAT and ACT scores for its student applicants. Said Stu Schmill, MIT dean of admissions:

“We believe a [testing] requirement is more equitable and transparent than a test-optional policy.”

So that's all right.

But really, what the Sam Blazes is university for? To learn a skill? You could get that in an apprenticeship or in on-line courses.  To build character? Yes, but that is such a guy thing. Clearly, the ladies are telling us, with all the talk of micro-aggressions and lived experience, that they don't like being challenged. They want to be baby-sat.

OK, then maybe university is to learn the wisdom of the ages. Well then, of course, there would be no right or wrong. No cancel culture or lefty professors from stem to stern. That was the idea, back in the day. Oxford and Cambridge made their young ruling-class scions study the classics because they wanted them to know about all the ups and downs and ins and outs of being a ruling class. No holds barred, because for them the name of the game was that to hold onto political power as the ruling class you needed to be smarter than the other guys.

Of course, university was also where they trained the priests in the state church. That was the idea of George Eliot's Fred Vincy of Middlemarch going to Cambridge. To become a priest in the Church of England. That would be higher status than his father Mayor Vincy's status as a businessman in Middlemarch.

Then the Germans invented the research university to make Germany strong enough to deal with France.

Today, obviously, the point of the university is to churn out good little boys and girls that all know how to be activists and get into the non-profit sector in NGOs and activism. You know, I think that would be cool if such an education were an internship. But to charge $60,000 per year? I think that the ruling class should pay for the training of its shock troops and not make the shock troops pay for their training. Of course, back in the day you had to buy commissions in the army.

But then I'm just a cranky old guy that never liked school, and got the hell out of education as soon as I got me a bachelors degree in civil engineering. And then became an autodidact by reading all the thinkers on my own.

Thing is: I think that education teaches people how to fit into the existing society in a nice little salaried slot in some bureaucracy somewhere. It might be corporate or it might be government.

But what if the future is different? What if the nice assumptions of today get turned upside down and the good little boys and girls dutifully prepare for a life that is Gone with the Wind? I suppose that's what a chap like Peter Turchin is telling us with his notion of "elite overproduction." Joel Kotkin is saying the same thing with his idea of "the coming revenge of the disappointed."

The question is: will the disappointed take their revenge on the ruling class? Or on the middle-class Commoners?

The best thing would be if they all signed up as activists in movements that attacked each other rather than ordinary middle-class deplorable America. Because, you know, when people are angry, they just want to draw blood. And don't necessarily think too clearly about who is to blame for their misery.

The other interesting thing is, of course, that the overwhelming majority of disappointed college graduates are probably women. And I don't know how women -- liberal women -- act politically when they want revenge. Like I say: women expect to be protected. When they are not they attach to a new protector. But how would that work in today's world? I just don't know.

No Liberals, Politics is Not the Answer!

Want to know the why of "gun violence" in black Chicago? It couldn't be, could it, that 

According to City of Chicago data, in every year from 1999 to 2009, more than 80 percent of all black women who gave birth were single.

I mean, imagine if poor women were pretty careful to keep the father of their baby around so that 1) they would have the financial support of the father and 2) the children would have a father around to teach them whatever it is that fathers provide.

Yes. Back in the day George Gilder wrote Visible Man about a teenage girl that had a baby and the father, a disabled ex-Marine, worked and supported her. Until she was old enough to apply for welfare and a gubmint apartment. Then she dumped him. I first wrote about this in 2011.

Then there is Ron Unz reviewing his California anti-bilingual education initiative of 25 years ago. Proposition 227 it was: "English for the Children." He was prompted to "do something" about bilingual education because he had read in The Los Angeles Times the following.

A group of poor Latino garment workers in Downtown Los Angeles had become so outraged at the refusal of their local Ninth Street elementary school to teach their children English that they had organized a public boycott.

Here are my takeaways on the issue from Ron's article:

• Republicans had opposed bilingual education for decades, but had done nothing about it.
• Experts said that the older you were, the easier it was to learn English.
• "schools were paid more money for every child who failed to learn English and financially penalized for those who did."
• "The official dogma behind bilingual education held that a young immigrant child required five to seven years to learn English,"

When the campaign got started, the anti-campaign (to keep bilingual education)

was a traditional, well-funded operation led by ace Democratic political consultant Richie Ross and a veteran campaign staff, backed by a field operation of thousands of local activists. It counted the public support of President Clinton, the chairmen of both the state Republican and Democratic parties, all four candidates for governor, every educational organization, every public and private union, and nearly every newspaper.

The anti-campaign tried to provoke a white backlash by portraying the measure as a giveaway to immigrants. And it messaged Latinos -- on Spanish speaking media -- to say "that the problems with bilingual programs had recently been fixed and that Proposition 227 would actually prevent children from learning English in school." 

But the measure passed with 61% of the vote, even though the anti-campaign had significantly reduced Latino support. 

Unz describes his experience talking to the Latino caucus at the California state legislature at the time.

At one point, I began suggesting that many Latinos didn’t like bilingual education, and [Diane Martinez] immediately interrupted and cut me off. “I know that!” she said, “Every election I walk door-to-door in my district, and everyone is always complaining to me about the bilingual programs. They all say that the system is no good, the classes don’t work, and their children aren’t learning any English. But they’re all stupid, ignorant immigrant parents, who don’t know anything about education. I’ve talked with the academic experts, and all the experts agree that the bilingual programs are successful.”

Guess what:

At her insulting characterization of her own Latino immigrant constituents, some of the other members of the Latino Caucus seemed to shrink down into their chairs in embarrassment, but none of them dared to challenge her harangue.

As Unz relates

Although the bilingual advocates were relatively few in number, they were fiercely committed to their programs and intensely focused upon that sole, overriding issue, expressing the sort of fanaticism that persuaded far larger organizations to steer clear of any direct conflict.

And so the Latino organizations in California kept out of the campaign and the Republicans stayed away, afraid that they would be tarred as extremist racist-sexist-homophobes. 

That's really the way that all politics works. Most people just want to live their daily lives and not get into arguments with other people.

But then there are the political activists -- and there is no politics without an enemy. The activists cow ordinary people and ordinary leaders who don't want to rock the boat. 

And so, you get a country bullied and bashed around by extremist political activists.

Like the "trans" issue.

Honestly. I don't know how we neutralize this power of the activist. Especially since all good little girls have been raised to believe that there is no nobler -- or more fashionable -- calling than to become an activist.

But politics divides, it make enemies out of friends and it makes people duck their heads to keep out of trouble.

And, of course it creates a political support system of "academic experts" who get government grants to produce the "science." In other words, they are well paid to support the activists.

And so every political issue reduces to "defeat the enemy, plunder the losers, and reward the supporters."

There's gotta be a better way.

After the American Empire

I've been seeing pieces that say, more or less, that if you don't hate Putin you're a traitor. Funny how the folks that were dancing toe-to-toe with Soviet Commies back in the day and saying that anyone that objected was a McCarthyite are now playing the Traitor Card.

Well, all I can say is, call me a traitor.

I think it is high time the US stopped trying to run the world and start to mind its own fences.

I'm sure that Vladimir Putin is a megalomanic. I suspect that Ukraine has become a puppet. Of someone. Because if Hunter Biden was trolling for million dollar bills in Ukraine with 50 percent for the "big guy" then I don't think we are talking about a sweet innocent virgin any more.

Look, it's only natural for a newcomer on the world scene to start throwing its weight around. As the US did in the Spanish American War in 1898. But, if you ask me it was pure imperialism.

But I fail to see the point of getting into World War I, President Wilson. Except that all the cool kids were dukin' it out in Europe. So, as any college president would do, the former president of Princeton decided he had to get in on the action. College presidents are so into cultural fashion, as we have seen in the last decade.

Then President Wilson decided that we needed a Carthaginian peace to teach Germany a lesson with the Versailles treaty that made the Germans into second-class citizens and set the stage for Literally Hitler. Thanks President Wilson. Only a college president could set up such a disaster.

So let's suppose we had to get into World War II. So that Hitler didn't conquer the world. Because we had screwed up in 1919. But would he have done so? What would have happened in his Russia campaign if the US hadn't been sending Russia lots of Dodge trucks for Solzhenitsyn to drive around in?

Anyway, after World War II we decided it was time to really teach the Germans a lesson so that they would never descend to aggressive nationalism again. Except that the occupying forces in Germany didn't have a clue how to run the place top-down, as Edward N. Peterson related in The American Occupation of Germany: Retreat to Victory. So by 1948 the occupiers just let the Germans take over their own country and ignite a Wirtschaftwunder. Anyway, we needed the Germans to help fight a Cold War against Stalin's Russia.

Anyway, no doubt we had to hold back Soviet Russia in the Cold War. I suppose, what with Europe absolutely devastated and all.

But I think, looking over the current Putin thing, that the Euros can handle this one on their own. I think the current situation is a great opportunity to say: hey, you guys are great, and you are closest to the action, so we'll trust you to do it right.

And then bug out of Europe and bring all the US troops home, and go to work on America. Of course, it will reduce the career opportunities for well-born young men to have careers in the foreign service. That might end up demoralizing the entire educated class.

Notice how nothing has changed. Today we have a new generation of the ruling class, and guess what: they have a top-down plan to rule America and Build Back Better towards a renewable future. Just like the ruling class had a top-down plan to run Germany in 1945.

Hey kids: Remember the Rules?

• Rule One: Don't invade Russia
• Rule Two: Don't invade China
• Rule Three: Don't do top-down

Oh yeah. Remember socialism? Top-down economic management by the experts? Treating people like Newtonian machines? And the New Deal? Top-down economic response to depression? And COVID? Top-down response to an infectious disease?

You know, you educated people, I am sure that you have read all the books and know that the current thing, the fashionable thing, is that mechanics and hierarchy and top-down management are so yesterday, darling. 

Today all the smart people know that the world works by "creative emergence." Something changes, maybe a butterfly in South America, and the whole world changes and we humans deal with it by adaption. Because the one thing we know that cannot work is a top-down program designed and managed by credentialed experts.

That's what I want for the next America. Creative Emergence. Adaption. Ordinary people running their ordinary lives, and credentialed experts keeping the heck out of the way.

Understanding the "Why" of the Current Crisis

Back in the day, writes Scott McKay at The American Spectator, we had a rough consensus. As in

the political consensus that has persisted for essentially all of our lives was established, to oversimplify the case, by William F. Buckley conservatives and Daniel Patrick Moynihan liberals. That consensus fueled an era marked by the welfare state, the regulatory state, the military-industrial complex, the education-media-political complex, and foreign adventurism for fun and profit particularly in the post–Cold War phase of the era.

But that consensus is dead: No more GOP Buckleyites, and no more Dem Moynihans. 

To guys like us, it seems like the left commands all the high ground. Sure, says McKay, but the left has a problem. Its crazy everything-is-oppression has led to the ridiculous moment in the Senate where a Supreme Court nominee dare not define "what is a woman."

McKay is an optimist. He writes that this moment will not tear the country apart, but rather prompt a political realignment, like Jefferson in 1800, Lincoln in 1860, and Roosevelt in 1932. In other words, Trumpism will win.

What? The Lincoln realignment did not tear the country apart? Ahem. 700,000 dead Americans might disagree with that.

Now I think that the Democrats have three problems.

1. Everything-is-oppression is a lie.
2. Politics-with-everything doesn't work.
3. Cancel culture is a sign that your agenda isn't working.

So let's unpack the three problems.

Everything-is-oppression I just read Thomas Sowell's Ethnic America where he recites the history of all the major ethnic groups in America. The key was not oppression, but the degree to which each ethnic group's culture was already adapted to individualistic life in the city -- before it hit the beaches.

The Germans already had a culture of responsibility. The Irish, Italians, and Blacks did not. Therein lies a tale. So when your politics is all about "we was robbed" instead of "how can we learn to thrive in the city" things ain't gonna go too well for you, because you have missed the point.

Politics-with-everything The problem with politics is Curtis Yarvin's maxim that "there is no politics without an enemy." He means that every political issue degrades into a battle against the enemy. Thus the everything-is-oppression agenda which is all about fighting the white oppressors. But human society is about social cooperation, and in the modern city, economic cooperation. If the other guy is an enemy, then that really limits the amount of social and economic cooperation.

Back in the day the New Deal coalition had a political solution with a government program for everything. The whole point of the Buckleyite GOP was to say, well, not exactly, and it got to enact some moderating economic policy in the late 1970s and 1980s. But in the 2010s the Obama people went back to government with everything, including universal health care. And, because blacks hadn't caught up with whites, they bumped up the government's racist policy of "diversity" into the Allies narrative of we Allies stand with the oppressed peoples against the white oppressors.

Cancel culture When a political movement lurches into a Cancel culture where people can lose their job for having the wrong opinion, it is a sign that the movement isn't delivering on its agenda. This is actually true of every political movement that goes beyond fighting off the Huns or the Nazis or the Commies. Politics is about the enemy, it is about war. If war is not an appropriate means for achieving something then the political movement will fail, and in the last phase of the political movement's existence it will probably be doing a Reign of Terror like the French revolutionaries, a Great Purge like the Stalinists, or a Cancel Culture like the Wokies.

Earth to liberals! An ideological frenzy like Cancel Culture is a sign that your agenda isn't working, not because your opponents are monsters but because your ideas don't work!

The point of politics is to mobilize the tribe or the nation to fight against a frightful enemy. If the problem is anything less than that, then politics is probably not the appropriate means.

And that is not just because not every problem is an enemy. It is that politics cannot get out of the circle of defeat the enemy, loot his granaries, and distribute the loot to the supporters. Needless to say, this agenda is always a wealth-destroying process. If you look at any government program, or any election, you can always reduce it to the enemy, the plunder, and the goodies for the supporters.

Want an example? The education system under COVID. The agenda of the teachers is to protect themselves from the disease-ridden students. The teachers are not saying, we will risk our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to teach the next generation of kids the knowledge and skills they will need to navigate the world. Not at all. They are saying, we will not teach these grubby kids unless we are safe.

As Eric Hoffer wrote: "What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation." One upon a time, universal education was going to save the world. Now it is a racket for teachers to get paid. See more in my "Age of Liberal Grift."

Stay tunes for more exciting episodes of The Next Regime.