Tuesday, 5 January 2010


Fear has a long history, and the idea of control-by-fear has a history that's only five minutes less than that. Keeping control of a pack of hominids by being the biggest and nastiest was a simple step and an easy one to cope with. Everyone knew who the biggest and nastiest one was and everyone knew to keep on his good side. Nothing devious or sneaky required by Big'n'Nasty, although underlings might engage in sneakiness to get their own way without being battered. Big'n'Nasty ruled by fear.

When man overcame his fear of fire, he soon realised that all the other animals were still afraid of it. Fire could keep predators away and also cook food and provide warmth. It was no longer just a matter of being big and nasty. Power lay with the one who could make fire. About now, the whole business of politics got under way because Big'n'Nasty worked out that it wasn't who controlled fire that mattered, it was who controlled the one who controlled fire. It's been downhill from there ever since.

When Fire Controller came under the protection of Big'n'Nasty, he thought he was on to a good thing. Already held in high regard, he now had a huge and vicious bodyguard. What he didn't realise was that he was just Big'n'Nasty's way of staying in charge because anyone who wanted to see Fire Controller had to get past Big'n'Nasty first.

This sparked an idea in the proto-Righteous of the time. It was impossible to split the rule when there was only one ruler, but now there were two. So, for example, Big'n'Nasty could be convinced that Fire Controller was untrustworthy, or that others wanted to take Fire Controller and run away to start a new tribe. Big'n'Nasty would need advisors and spies to keep an eye on things. Now, nobody could get to Big'n'Nasty without going through his advisers first. The Righteous took control without having to challenge Big'n'Nasty, and they had him as a threat if their orders weren't obeyed.

Read it all - it is very good. Excellent even. Give it to your kids to read:


Now THIS is the kind of person who should be a teacher. Kids would lap it up - and his classes would have no disruption because the kids would be just too damned interested in what he was saying. I've seen him do this sort of thing with several quite complex topics.

However ... how long do we think it would be before the Righteous found an excuse to sack him?

For giving the game away.

Silly Kuffar mentioned teachers and teaching earlier on ... only generally they're not teachers and they're not teaching unless it's homosex and masturbation lessons to five-year-olds. Real teachers are not allowed anywhere near our schools. The best teacher I ever encountered in my entire life was actually an Education Officer in the RAF - and I've experienced education at primary, secondary, undergraduate and postgraduate levels (and trade education in the Air Force, of course, from the age of 15 at RAF Halton, Bucks).

And why was he so good? - because he never told us a single damned thing in two years of teaching - he made us tell him. He spent all that time asking us questions, every question being a tiny bit in advance of the last question we had worked out and answered. Worked for me ... I still remember the stuff he taught some 40+ years later.

Of course, it did mean he had to work hard at it - first he had to understand the minds of the boys he was teaching and how those minds worked; and he had to prepare all his lesson plans well in advance ... oh wait, now I understand why modern education is as useful as a bacon buttie at a Muslim wedding.

Problem sorted.


No comments: