FASTER ELECTRIC GREEN: THE FUTURE OF SCHOOLS

 

Electric Scooters for the Future School

I’ve seen a few electric scooters recently helmed by adults riding the pavement. And I am aware of a discussion regarding the merit of this development: some claiming (wrongly, obviously!) that the collision risk from a 20 stone land whale scootering at 20 mph outweighs the benefit to the hungry juggernaut of getting to the burger bar quicker. This debate brought to mind a discussion that my class had regarding the pros and cons of this new tech.

As part of the school’s pupil democracy initiative, classes were invited to propose playground improvements. While doing so, a male pupil suggested the provision of electric scooters. He then had to fend off accusations that boys would just use them to chase girls – a fair point. This fun-filled image of screaming girls and whooping boys, perhaps with lassos, had to be put aside when another, and kinder, use was suggested: a better way to complete the Daily Mile*for those pupils who suffer from ‘sore legs’ when they run, or just can’t be bothered due to laziness and fatness. This was a genius level idea, which, even as it crushingly defeats the purpose of the Daily Mile, perfectly epitomises the diabolic connection between tech and health which the Daily Mile is apparently designed to address. Alas, all this came to a disappointing naught, and the scooters were not adopted. School management, it appears, really doesn’t care about what the pupils think or want; and I know that you'll be as surprised as me with the implication that the various pupil committees and opinion surveys are just for show to deceive the parents and wider public. And for inuring our pupils, as future citizens, to the irrelevancy of their democratic opinions about anything. 

However, some good news: it was recently reported that, given the trend in childhood obesity, such scooters (with beefed-up frames) may indeed become a commonplace in school. This to ensure that infant fatbergs don't turn up to class tired out from walking from their car drop-off  to the classroom. This is a powerful response to those nayayers who never see any good in technology. And to those who complain about greenhouse gas emission, I would remind them that the scooters are electric powered. So you can go faster and save the planet faster! And as for those smart Alecs that claim that the electric charge stations themselves depend on even more fossil fuel than just using fossil fuel directly (!) Ha ha, got you there! – we have been informed that these electric charge stations will be powered by government statistics and bullshit, and you don’t get any greener than that. So, ha ha; got you back! 

For my part, I would swap a whiteboard update for the cost equivalent of a half-dozen class-based electric scooters and a quad bike. Some tasks would surely get done quicker; and even if this was just chasing girls at playtime, this alone would justify the cost.

What think ye?

PS. I am pleased to report that, thanks to IT upgrades, the daily mile is now completed digitally. The pupil carbon footprint is a bit bigger, of course, (like the waistband) but we now avoid ‘really’ sore legs and the terrible dangers of getting wet should it rain while outdoors.

 NOTES

*  An idea that primary schools, rather than parents, should be responsible for promoting weight loss and fitness among their children; and that the best way to do this is to have the children run a mile every day. Basically, then, the school should become like a sort of fitness camp. Of course, children should be running miles every day anyway, but not as (as in the Daily Mile) running a continuous mile, as an adult runner would. I think I’ll return to this topic in a later blogpost, for it nicely illustrates the idiot-level thinking that relentlessly attends the curriculum, and just as relentlessly dips the public purse.

THE SHAKESPEARE ENIGMA: WHAT’S GOING ON?

                            

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

My developed interest in Shakespeare goes back over thirty years, however, I had ignored the authorship question (did actor Will from Stratford write the works with his name on them?); assuming it for the most part improperly motivated. And although aware of the stupendous world of reference within his writing, which massively exceeds the various limitations of his country-boy background, and the numerous other anomalies surrounding his supposed life, I had countered them by acknowledging his genius as a sufficient explanation.

 

However, I no longer accept this argument, as, following some recent study, I now realise that even a genius still has to have a particular education to allow their art the particular form of expression it takes. Leaving aside all the other evidences*(and there is a lot), the actor Will from Stratford did not/could not have had such an education that his putative works brilliantly reveal – this is, of course, the authorship mystery. But who then?

 

Peter Dawkins in his The Shakespeare Enigma simultaneously demonstrates Will as clearly not the author, and convincingly argues for Sir Francis Bacon using Will from Stratford as a mask. This work represents a formidable piece of lifelong scholarship which is not easily gainsaid, no matter the obvious objections to this idea that swiftly come to  mind and (as in my case) how much you cherish the idea of a common-stock Englishman being the world’s greatest literary artist.

 

The arguments against Will the Stratford actor as author also involve the most amazing and clear evidence of cabalistic and other secret embedded codes within Shakespeare’s works, and particularly the sonnets. This was something I had no awareness of at all. And its presence takes my wonder to a whole new level; although, frankly, beyond my ability to understand, far less appreciate, what exactly is going on, and why Shakespeare (whoever he is) has included such esoteric mysteries hidden within his work. This level of thinking (for want of a better term) is so far in advance of mine that I feel like a child shown advanced calculus.

 

In addition to Dawkin’s demonstrations, the exploration of these secret signs, mathematical patterns and embedded codes within the works is brilliantly explored by Alan Green, in his books and Bardcast videos. Green’s approach is somewhat different to Dawkins, although the two are complementary, and indeed both researchers are friends, rather than rivals. Powered by the love of Shakespeare’s work, and I suppose the thrill of the chase, Green has mastered the daunting maths and trigonometry incorporated (yes, it actually is!) and made himself a formidable cryptologist – all self taught! Both Green and Dawkins, then, in their relentless intellectual curiosity and search for truth are following a great British tradition of somewhat eccentric maverick-scholars. Eccentric, of course, here meant as a respectful nod to their wonderful persistence, quite devoid of self-interest.

 

Green too has, of necessity, arrived at a similar refutation of Will from Stratford as the Shakespeare author, but argues for the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, with an influence of de Vere’s mentor, the Elizabethan polymath, Dr Dee; Green’s evidence seems irresistible – at least, for the sonnets.

 

However, I’m equally convinced of Bacon as the real Shakespeare author. So, now I don’t know what to think! I intuitively sense a single voice in the plays and in the sonnets (although not necessarily the same in both, as I understand the plays and poetry being quite different types of literary endavour), but perhaps that voice has more than one mind? As my understanding now rests, I cannot see any way beyond a team effort; certainly they knew each other well. By team effort, I am meaning sharing the same Shakespeare name as their  front, and not necessarily directly collaborating on any particular publication. Strangely, years ago I came across (I cannot remember when or where) just such an argument and considered it so unlikely, ridiculously so, that I concluded the author of this argument quite mad. And now me!

 

Lest you think that this is written in any sort of disappointment at the Shakespeare mystery being further compounded, I can assure you that this is not the case. The author is the same genius he was before, and the beauty and wonder of his work is unchanged by authorship questions. Whatever the truth of this, beyond doubt Will Shakespeare**from Stratford is not author Shakespeare. Although Will from Stratford does have a role in this story, perhaps as a collaborator providing an actor’s insight, and/or a willing (bribed) mask for the true author who had (or preferred) to remain hidden. Hiding creative authorship behind a false persona might seem inexplicable to us today, but is perfectly understandable in the febrile, dangerous context of early modern England.

 

Following up on what seem to be revealing clues, Alan Green hopes to be able to soon pull back the curtain and uncover physical evidence of the true author/s. They wanted this – hence the clues! And somewhere, somehow, all the Shakespeares are smiling.

 

As an advocate of Shakespeare studies being incorporated into the primary school curriculum, in lieu of …[better not say], I had at first considered the authorship question as a significant complication. However, on further reflection, I now think the exact opposite. Children love mysteries and puzzles, and complicated motivations; what is the Shakespeare authorship question but this transposed to early modern England? And it is, in its essential feature, hardly different from Enid Blyton’s Secret Seven which enthralled me as a child.

 

Thusly, I no longer fear introducing this aspect to children, but look forward to it.

 

All things are ready if our minds be so.

 

What think ye?

 

*   For me, speaking as a lover of literature and a parent, what absolutely nails the mystery is that Shakespeare’s daughters were illiterate. Consider: The world’s greatest literary genius, and an established gentleman in his hometown, didn’t bother ensuring his children’s literacy! If the actor Will from Stratford is the author, this is simply inexplicable. ( Note that by Shakespeare's time the claim that there was a cultural prejudice against female literacy is not valid – and certainly so against females with the social standing of Will's daughters)

 ** Will from Stratford has many different spellings and pronunciations of his surname. The one we know best (Shakespeare) only once turns up on a document, independently of the publications.

PS. I cannot even begin to here provide a summary of the brilliant work mentioned and so I’m hoping this essay has made you curious and so will search out Peter and Alan’s books, and Alan’s podcasts. I should note that I am not dismissing the traditional view; although I note that some defenders of this position have adopted a patronising, even sarcastic, attitude to the rival arguments – casting them in the popular trope of conspiracy theory to better discredit it – but, in fact, more discredits themselves (looking at you, Shapiro!) in refusing to properly consider the serious questions posed by the authorship controversy.

A collection of authorship arguments can be found at the home page of the link below. This specific link takes you to a page with videos about it and a statement of the authorship question, which is also read out loud (excellently) by the actor Michael York, should you prefer to hear it:

https://doubtaboutwill.org

 

REWARDING THE PUPPET

 

CEO Ken Muir CBE

I’ve just found out that the ex CEO of the GTCS¹, Ken Muir, has been made a CBE; this for “services to education.” Never was it more deserved. And Her Majesty has to be commended for exposing, in awarding this ‘honour’, the true value of Ken to the Scottish nation.  CBE tells you everything you need to know about him and his role in “bringing Scottish education into the 21st century.” I already knew him well through his regular articles in the GTCS monthly ‘professional’ magazine.

Under his leadership, the GTCS completed its transformation from a simple, but sufficiently functional, administrative body that basically maintained a box file of those deemed qualified to teach to a bureaucratically bloated, Soviet-style state organ that has led the profession into a death embrace with educational nonsense.

In fronting all the social justice pieties and relentless initiatives to ‘enhance standards’, and ‘tackle inequities’, the GTCS has created a technocratic hellscape that delivers endless failure at top dollar. And then lies about it through its in-house Pravda, here called (Ha ha!) Teaching Scotland, but really should be Unteaching Scotland.

Endless failure at top dollar; Aye, there’s the rub!

After the Review of Additional Support for Learning “raises serious questions” about translating inclusion into effective practice, Ken is “shocked by the realities of inequity”; likewise, he is “sickened’ by racism in schools. He is always ‘disappointed at the lack of progress’ towards that shape-shifting chimera called Excellence; and always (bravely, naturally) recognises the need for ‘more questions’, ‘more commitment’, ‘more reviews’ and ‘more resources’. But fortunately, less teaching seem too dark a profession, he is always encouraged by some new initiative – especially those involving the GTCS itself laundering the hoovered up public funds.

He is like a cliché machine for the brave new world of social justice.

In over 40 years within teaching apparently he has not noticed any patterns behind the relentless fakery and deceptions, the destructive trends and false ideas, the Utopian madness behind all the failures. Nor noticed the countless billions spent on tomorrow’s garbage, or that every fix further embeds the problem. What is it with Ken – idiot, puppet or (borrowing the phrase) willing executioner? Either way, he carries no shame. He’s our fiddling Nero!

In confronting social reality and human nature, the hubris behind current teaching practice represents nothing less than an attack on human consciousness in general and, specifically, psychological warfare against us natives. No other generation of teachers has had to endure the infiltration and subversion of their workplace to the extent that ours has. And no other generation of pupils has had to endure such psychological manipulation and been the deliberate subject of dark political vision.

CEO Ken had nothing to say about this! In his disingenuous calls for scrutiny and accountability he could have started with himself. But he never once questioned establishment narratives. The globalist ambition for Scotland carries vast power, but, as it is realised through subverted bureaucracies, it still needs valets to deliver its messages. And so, ('atta boy!) enter Ken. And now you know why the ‘honour’. This corporate tool served his true master well; and all for only £100K + and a stonking pension.

One wonders about the spirit motivating such establishment cogs? His monthly articles displayed such clichéd imbecility, such dissembling emptiness, that he must have known he was lying. Of course, this ability is why he was installed (in the manner of a toilet) as CEO. But still one hopes, if integrity and leadership cannot to be displayed en route to career security, then one can hope that conscience catches up with ambition upon retirement. And, at last, free to tell the truth! After all, he’s not tribal or cabal, and being an old man with his reckoning on the near horizon, why not clear your conscience before that final classroom door and do his country a true service by addressing to the public the true reason for the endless school failures without fear or favour to teachers, parents, bureaucrats, politicians and pupils. This could be done in a dignified manner, after the fashion of Solzhenitsyn.²

But Ken has nothing to say here! Has he been bought for the bauble tossed his way?

I used to think that cowardice streaked with shame explained the silence of such creed as Ken, but now I believe that their loyalty to the lies that they see destroying their own people was not bought, it was given. Ken, like his CEO ilk, was born to be a traitor to his own people. This is basic genetics at play.

I was thinking on approaching this piece of considering Ken as another destroyer-general, but on reflection this was honouring his service to our demise too much. Traitor-slave more describes his role. CBE is his brand of ownership.

What think ye?

PS. I am using the familiar Ken, but not as a friendly gesture. It seems the least offensive way of indicating my lack of respect.

 NOTES

1. General Teaching Council for Scotland. Formerly an administrative body and now a globalist front and sales agent for digital solution proffered by our IT overlords.

2. My fantasy preference would be after the manner of Dave Moss resigning his employment in the movie, Glengarry Glen Ross.The Mitch and Murray office should be replaced with the Scottish Parliament – it seems like a fairly good fit. And  wee Nic could be Tony Roma. Actually, she is him in a pantsuit!