The F Word

I’ll come right out and say it, so those on the left, who will simply not agree, need not bother their empty heads with reading any further. Ready? Here goes. Let’s reintroduce failure in schools.

There. Have the lefties, er, left the room? Good. Bring back the use of ‘Fail’.

Now I know what you’re thinking; you're thinking, woah there Batsby m’boy, surely schools are positively awash with failure? Well, you’re quite correct, but they haven’t called it that in a long time. The edu-nazis, their heightened, enlightened, delicate sensitivities shrivelling at the very thought, prefer to talk about ‘deferred achievement’ and so on. They may as well chuck in a few facilitations, engenderings, empowerments and ‘going forwards’ to highlight that such language is mere waffle. Because it means precisely nothing and has no useful impact on those it is designed to deceive.

I caught the last half of the BBC’s Sunday morning discussion The Big Questions yesterday and in a debate about grammar schools (Start viewing at 41:30) the loony left were out and swinging in the form of the Socialist Educational Association, an organisation which describes itself as, Labour's only educational affiliate. Oh that explains so much. (Including why they didn't employ a capitalist lacky to design a half-decent website.)

While the pro-grammar argument was intelligently presented and the message delivered in calm, measured, authoritative tones, Sheila Doré’s response was to regurgitate the dogma of her clan, not with any sort of reasoned counter-argument, just the usual clarion call to class war. Bore. In the view of the SEA, comprehensive schools are the only solution to the country’s educational needs, despite years of hard evidence that the comprehensive system just doesn’t work. Any arguments offered by the other side were utterly ignored and the doctrines chanted once again… just a bit louder.

It’s leftist lunacy at its worst and has many of the undesirable traits of religion. (Don’t get me started) A blind adherence to the belief that we are all equal is palpable nonsense. This is the thinking that prevents justice being dealt out swiftly to transgressors and generates armies of cringing pygmies crafting away to devise ever more inventive types of deprivation in order to redistribute the earnings of a diminishing working class to an ever-increasing horde of ‘deferred achievers’.

This is the politics of envy writ large and if the SEA has its way, imprinted indelibly on the impressionable minds of your children for ever more. The left simply cannot bear the thought that there is anything worthy in the principle of greater reward for greater effort or ability, preferring instead the notion of some nebulous entitlement to equality of outcome, dressed up as equality of opportunity.

That can’t work – only so much to go around – so, in the perverse logic of the left, if I can’t have a yacht, neither shall you. If I can’t win a medal, you don’t deserve one either. And if I can’t read or write I don’t see why anybody should even desire such a thing. They are doing so well with that last one that some of their supporters are not even aware of, let alone able to access, the means of their own salvation.

If you don’t tell people they've failed, how in hell can you then tell them to buck their ideas up? And as bucking up your ideas is one of the foundation stones of my great social plan, where does that leave my forthcoming reign as king?

How times have changed. Back in the day, even the Marxists at the BBC would wield the F-word with barely a flinch. See, the poor kid on the test card got an ‘F’ and I reckon if they'd just let her finish she might have even  won the game!

Amburgers Syndrome

The only reason I'm putting this up here is so I don't lose it.

And because it's brilliant.

The original is on YouTube.(link)

If you like this you should follow @davidtristram on Twitter

Right On!

A lot of truth here in a Daily Mail article – “Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views”. While both assertions are demonstrable, there is no real causal link. But wait, you’re thinking, this can’t be the Batsby that we’ve come to know and loathe on Blogger, surely? Shouldn’t he be fighting his [Boo, nasty Tory] side? Nope. There’s nowt to disagree with. In fact the study positively supports my thesis that it is human nature to be right-wing.

The majority of the world population is of relatively low intelligence on any absolute scale. That is, the mean is a long way short of the median. This is as true for the UK as it is for the planet and here in the UK, given that a large number of ordinary working people vote Labour, it is a reasonable assumption – borne out by plenty of evidence – that less intelligent people will vote against their own interests. As we shall see…

The interests of working people are broadly this: that they get to keep most of their income, that they contribute what is necessary to run programmes in the national interest – basic healthcare, education, infrastructure services, police and armed forces – and that they should not have to pay for the obsessive, ideologically driven demands and excesses of minority interest groups. In other words, most ordinary working people should naturally hold right-of-centre views and vote against Labour. The fact that many of them vote FOR oppressive state intervention in their every waking moment is proof-positive that many natural right-wingers are inherently quite stupid.

Still at the arse end of the intelligence spectrum, those who are largely unemployable are at least smart enough to know on which side their bread is buttered. Whilst still holding many of the same normal human views as their working peers they are obviously that bit ‘more cleverer’ as they vote for the side which keeps their backsides firmly glued to the sofa. Summary; the vote for unworkable socialism comprises a stupid element (the right-wing workers) and the undeniably more intelligent tactical vote from the lazy-arsed left.

As for the racist charge I think you’ll find that left or right, poorer people do tend to be racist because it’s a survival response, entirely natural and seen in every culture throughout the globe, where competition for resources rewards tribalistic cooperation.

But nonetheless we are talking about the vast majority of the population, remember, those who are below median intelligence. (Which, incidentally, is why one-man, one-vote democracy is so inherently flawed)

At the top end of the scale there are also two types of ‘intelligent’. Those on the right tend to make money, power the economy, employ people and generally get things moving. They usually have to spend many years repeatedly doing the same things correctly to become successful and frequently have to fight their corner to survive and thrive.

Those on the left tend to think more, make pretty things and spend a lot of time being highly visible; on film, in print, on TV, in galleries, on stage…. Traditionally, art and ‘higher’ culture has been supported by patronage or popularity and its practitioners opportunistically thrive on fashion and fad. While some have long-lived careers due to undeniable talent, many more make their living by dint of a remarkably small body of work of often intangible, often short-term value. Denying a banker his windfall bonus, many will happily fund their own lifestyle from the happy accident of a best-seller or a three-movie film career. Or an inheritance.

The right do not need the left, but tolerate the existence of them insofar as they make life more entertaining and less brutal. The left, however, do need the right, as without enterprise nobody gets to eat lunch. In other words, rich or poor, the right exhibits the traits of a species bent on maintaining the daily struggle to survive and occasionally prosper, while the left exhibits many of the characteristics of a parasite.

So, what is more intelligent? To work hard, keep your nose clean and make hard choices, or to indulge yourself and live off the endeavours of others?

Who occupies the fucking moral high ground now?

Hair today...

This is brilliant! I don't give a flying fuck how much you hate me for this but the news that some daft bint has been poisoned by her hair extensions has made my day.

Despite my regular protestations it seems people continue to wilfully aspire to be monumentally stupid. If their idiotic pursuit of bling-before-brains results in their death it only reinforces the plain, simple, honest truth that I was right in the first place. If you are too simple to do anything than follow the herd then the only use you are to me is cannon fodder.

It makes the job of selection for elimination so easy. Tattoos, nails, hair. It's all the evidence I need to secure a conviction; a deeply held conviction that you are an utter waste of oxygen.

GCS-Eeech!

A lovely, heart-warming story of a return to our senses in this Guardian report into Non-Quals. There are currently, it informs us, a barely believable 3175 qualification titles that are nominally equivalent to a GCSE*. That they are to scrap over 3000 of them says much about their actual worth.

But wait, what... wait... I mean...wha... (Deep breath) Three. Fucking. THOUSAND? When I was at school we had maths, physics, chemistry, history, biology, art, English language, English literature, Latin, technical drawing, a few modern languages and a handful of vocationals such as woodwork, metalwork and cookery. From where, in the name of arse, did they even dream up the125 that will remain, let alone the other three-fucking-THOUSAND?

A search reveals such edifying subjects as fish-fiddling, nail-painting, hoarse whispering and tape measuring. I'm sure there's a proper list somewhere but I don't have the stomach or the lungs for it. Spewing up while simultaneously shaking fists, rending garments and raging to the heavens is far too much effort for midweek.

But obviously, an enormous percentage of kids are and will remain far too stupid and/or lazy to actually merit a real GCSE (For overseas readers, the GCSE is a vastly dumbed-down replacement for the 'elitist' [Ordinary] 'O' Levels of yesteryear, that you had to study in order to pass.) So, I guess we should have at least a handful of thicko subjects in order that they can feign achievement. We may as well make them as meaningful as we can.

Some suggestions for modern vocational O Levels:

• Getting your fat arse out of bed in the morning
• Keeping your gob shut until you start paying taxes
• Knowing which side your bread is buttered
• Holding down a shit job for years while studying hard to improve yourself
• Working out where babies come from and how to stop it, allied with:
• You pop 'em out - you pay for 'em
• Paying your own way
• Stealth Wanking - which will come in handy for time spent in prison
• Finding somebody who gives a shit

Trust me when I tell you - yet again - that the average ability in maths and English in this country is appalling - about the level of an eleven year old at best.

With this in mind I present the latest, proven-to-work, guaranteed-results technology for primary school, to be introduced at the same time as I consign to the skip all unnecessary teaching technology toys:

The iSlate

(*GCSE = Gratuitously Counterproductive Shameful Excresence)