Monday, September 14, 2009


Are school killers rebelling against Compulsory Public Education? Are they perhaps rather rebelling against Bad Education: a form of anarchism?

In Ontario, Canada, the literacy rate of the general population was 90.5% in 1893, even 94.22% for those between 10 and 20 years of age. In 1990: the reading skills of 16% of Canadian adults (2.9 million) were too limited to allow them to deal with the majority of the written material encountered in every day life. A further 22% of Canadian adults (4.0 million) could barely use reading material to carry out simple reading tasks within familiar contexts. However, this group did not have sufficient skills to cope with more complex reading contexts. — straight from Statistics Canada, Survey of Literacy Skills.

Compulsory public education added to feminism seems to have caused functional illiteracy, while at the same time conditioning students to be the compliant workers of tomorrow. Is that perhaps why some are increasingly ''going postal'' against the education system and planning a ''good old school shooting''? The use of politically correct policies and feminism in post-secondary educational institutions is another reason to see red and want to pick up a gun. Acts of vandalism and arson could be explained as a reaction against the attempt of the system to control students and condition them to becomes "slaves". Compulsory public education might be seen as a threat to liberty, but the bigger threat seems to be its bad quality. From Columbine to L'école Polytechnique, it might be the bad quality of the system that was targeted and not so much the students.

Such of course is a completely novel interpretation of the facts: not payback against bullies, or teacher or the administration, but perhaps a rebellion against compulsory public education, and even further: rebellion against its bad quality that brings in poor results and produces functional illeteracy. Killings by Seung Cho, probably a Columbine copycat (just like the shooting spree at Dawson College) could now be interpreted as an open rebellion against the side effects of bad education, much more than classic explanations such as bullying and racism (that might have played a minor role nonetheless). Fantasy explanations abound after a killing. The most common is to say that such acts are a rebellion against patriarchy, and in some cases even the white-dominated patriarchy. Some would even call Marc Lepine's killing an anti-sexist act (because he separated the men from the women), and say he was actually fighting against the reverse racism that feminism had brought about. So, after the deed bogus explanations can be found virtually everywhere: Marc being a victim of matriarchy, but also of patriarchy, etc...

Some will say that school mass killings are unconscious forms of protest against something: be it compulsory education, or ghetto mentality, etc... why not against bad education for a change? Of course, the favorite explanation to school shootings is to say that they are not a reaction against education itself, but a reaction against bullying. Bullying is intrinsic to a competitive, hypercapitalist/corporate/market oriented and homophobic society and it happens everywhere: in the family, in the workplace, etc... . Killings like this also happen in those places. They will say the problem with Public Education is that the foxes are in charge of the henhouse, so that children in public schools who are different: emotional, "weak", shy, geeky, or anything but "normal" are at the mercy of thugs and monsters who prey on them. Killing another is of course one of the most authoritarian and hierarchal acts one can commit. As we know, the end does not justify the means for the simple reason that the means make the end. Therefore, killing to improve the quality of education is highly questionable, but on the other hand: isn't such bad quality already killing us? It seems that Marc hardly had a fair choice, at best one between two bad options!

But let's call a cat: a cat, and a dog: a dog. There are unavoidable facts here: first, that modern feminist education produces illiteracy and long term failure for boys for over thirty years now. And second, that single-parent households produced widespread criminality for over two generations now. This is clearly the fault of feminism. What is the solution? There is no easy one: at first, possible solutions have to be extreme. Therefore, boys should drop out of school as early as possible and settle for self-education (Autodidacticism). They should leave their single-parent home at as young an age as possible and search for their fathers. And, it appears that school shootings are a legitimate way to get back at the system and denounce the scandal and the injustice of our schools, and of society as a whole. Marc Lepine might have been a visionary in his time.

So to wrap it up: if you stay in the system, you will come out an illeterate, so you have no choice but to drop out. If you stay in the system, you will fail, then the system has been rigged to allow only girls to succeed. Therefore, the temporary solution is to drop out of school and resort to autodidacticism in the meantime, or to go to a private college if you got enough money. Another solution, which isn't one really, would be to resort to a school shooting to make public the failings of the system: a bad idea that might not be one after all, considering...

No comments:

Post a Comment