Saturday, February 28, 2009

Alas, too late to confirm Anastasia's claims.

Genomic identification in the historical case of the Nicholas II royal family

Abstract
Accurate unambiguous identification of ancient or historical specimens can potentially be achieved by DNA analysis. The controversy surrounding the fate of the last Russian Emperor, Nicholas II, and his family has persisted, in part, because the bodies of 2 children, Prince Alexei and 1 of his sisters, have not been found. A grave discovered in 1991 contained remains putatively identified as those of the Russian Royal family. However, not all family members were represented. Here, we report the results of genomic analyses of new specimens, the human remains of 2 burned skeletons exhumed from a grave discovered in July 2007, and the results of a comprehensive genomic analysis of remains from the 1991 discovery. Additionally, ≈117 years old archival blood specimens from Nicholas II were obtained and genotyped, which provided critical material for the specific determination of individual identities and kinship identifications. Results of genotypic analyses of damaged historical specimens were evaluated alongside samples from descendants of both paternal and maternal lineages of the European Royal families, and the results conclusively demonstrate that the recently found remains belong to children of Nicholas II: Prince Alexei and his sister. The results of our studies provide unequivocal evidence that the remains of Nicholas II and his entire family, including all 5 children, have been identified. We demonstrate that convergent analysis of complete mitochondrial genome sequences combined with nuclear DNA profiles is an efficient and conclusive method for individual and kinship identification of specimens obtained from old historic relics.

Friday, February 27, 2009

More proof that the monarchical impulse has not died.

funny pictures
moar funny pictures

What remaining civilized sentiments humans have, rest on the shoulders of cats. Cats, preservers of all that is good!

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Sounds like the British still have it.

I started to write "Sounds like the Brits have still got it" but decided they might prefer a less colonial phrasing.

Anyway, this is the best news I've had all week:

Actress's blubbering makes British wince

[F]ailing her own actorly advice to "gather," she began hyperventilating and burst into convulsive sobs on stage. [Kate] Winslet then went on to pay tribute to people no one had ever heard of, like her agents and makeup artists; announced that she loved her co-star, Leonardo DiCaprio, "with all my heart"; forgot Angelina Jolie's name; and generally behaved as if she had just learned that a donor heart had finally been found, enabling her transplant operation to go ahead after all.

Oh, my God, was the general reaction in Britain.

"Most people watching actually wanted, literally, to die," wrote Caitlin Moran in The Times of London.

Referring to Gwyneth Paltrow's tear-stained speech after winning an Academy Award for "Shakespeare in Love" in 1999, Alexander Chancellor wrote in The Guardian that Winslet's performance "was so weird that I felt it might have been intended as a joke - a deliberate parody of Gwyneth Paltrow to show up the vanity of Hollywood stars."


Keep that stiff upper lip, Brits, please! Continue to stuff your shirts! We're all counting on you!

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Off with their heads.

"I would rather be at the mercy of someone with the power to say 'Off with her head!' than be nibbled to death by a bureaucratic duck."
~Florence King

Having had an exhausting week, this weekend I indulged my guilty pleasure by renting The Tudors.

Many American movies set in monarchical times and places take a propagandistic slant against monarchy. The usual angle is that kings had too much power and were wont to use it arbitrarily. I don't think that The Tudors is intended to have any sort of political message; my impression is that the era was chosen only for its dramatic potential. However, if it was intended as propaganda, it was unsuccessful.

It's true, the movie shows how fickle Henry VIII could be. More than one friend and ally of the king eventually found himself in a dungeon or on a scaffold when he had thwarted the king's wishes; Henry was no more loyal to men than he was to women.

But despite this, it couldn't help but strike me that until he escalated his obsession with Anne Boleyn to the point of leaving the Catholic Church, only his intimates were harmed by his royal whims. His insistence on divorcing Catherine of Aragon initiated generations of English Protestants and Catholics taking turns persecuting each other. Until that, while his advisors and courtiers found their fate hanging by the thread of his inconstant favor, the people of England went about their own business without interference. No one was forced to become a royal favorite or to curry favor at court, and the risk-averse generally had the sense to seek their fortunes elsewhere. It was kind of like the mafia: they only killed each other.

Democracies constantly change the rules that govern every detail of citizens' lives. Dictators seem to compete to see which of them can pile up the largest body count. But most monarchs do nothing worse than beheading a few of their former favorites. It is clear which is the most pleasant to live under.

We should have seen this coming.

How Democracies Become Tyrannies

Near the end of the Republic Socrates decides to drive this point home by showing Adeimantus what happens to a regime when its parents and educators neglect the proper moral education of its children. In the course of this chilling illustration Adeimantus comes to discover a dark and ominous secret: without proper moral conditioning a regime's "defining principle" will be the source of its ultimate destruction. For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks a democracy.

For Socrates, democracy's "insatiable desire for freedom and neglect of other things" end up putting it "in need of a dictatorship." The short version of his theory is that the combination of freedom and poor education in a democracy render the citizens incapable of mastering their impulses and deferring gratification. The reckless pursuit of freedom leads the citizens to raze moral barriers, deny traditional authority, and abandon established methods of education. Eventually, this uninhibited quest for personal freedom forces the public to welcome the tyrant. Says Socrates: "Extreme freedom can't be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether for a private individual or for a city."


The article goes on to reveal how Socrates pretty much predicted the election of Barack Obama.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

They've been plotting this for decades.

Mencius Moldbug, along with a couple of other smart reactionaries, keeps saying that Progressivism is actually the spawn of Protestant Christianity. At first I resisted this, since of course I know and know of plenty of Protestants who are good conservatives. But eventually I started to see that he was right, though Progressivism is very much a mutant spawn of Protestantism.

Today he again linked something he's linked before as evidence. I've just reread it and wanted to share.

American Malvern

These are the high spots of organized U.S. Protestantism's super-protestant new program for a just and durable peace after World War II:

* Ultimately, "a world government of delegated powers."

* Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism.

* Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty. [Ed.: This is a large part of why monarchy had to go. Monarchs aren't going to hand over their sovereignty to some board of directors. Elected heads of state have demonstrated over recent decades their eagerness to do just that.]

* International control of all armies & navies. [Ed.: No wonder Democrats kept whining that the rest of the world didn't approve of us going to war against terrorist states. Sane people can't see the problem there. It's because in their minds, this bullet point is a legitimate goal to be striven for and behaving as if it hasn't happened, which it hasn't, is alarming out-of-control behavior.]

* "A universal system of money ... so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation." [Ed.: What did I say about the euro?!?]

* Worldwide freedom of immigration.

* Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade.

* "Autonomy for all subject and colonial peoples" (with much better treatment for Negroes in the U.S.). [The second part of this sentence is the only piece of this entire list of which I can approve.]

* "No punitive reparations, no humiliating decrees of war guilt, no arbitrary dismemberment of nations."

* A "democratically controlled" international bank "to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large-scale private and governmental loans."

This program was adopted last week by 375 appointed representatives of 30-odd denominations called together at Ohio Wesleyan University by the Federal Council of Churches. Every local Protestant church in the country will now be urged to get behind the program. "As Christian citizens," its sponsors affirmed, "we must seek to translate our beliefs into practical realities and to create a public opinion which will insure that the United States shall play its full and essential part in the creation of a moral way of international living."


God help us.

The only comfort, if you can call it that, is that this will inevitably lead to a world war which will smash the vile structure to bits.

Royal Gold Diggers

Being under the weather recently, I dragged myself to the library in search of light reading. I found Charlotte Hays' The Fortune Hunters.

I hope my readers will not be irritated at hearing a little more gossip to the detriment of the late Princess of Wales. Since I have always refused to read the articles about her and for years have used my TV as a viewing screen for the old movies I rented, the things I've learned about her in certain books I've recently read, the essays by respectable authors such as Theodore Dalrymple and Florence King, and the blogs of my esteemed fellow monarchists, have all been news to me. But I've heard so many silly irritating people fawn on Diana that I feel avenged whenever I learn more to her discredit. Please, bear with me.

This book's chapter on Diana confirms what I suspected: that her charitable work was just a way to get attention and upstage the royal family. I do concede that she did some actual good work, inspiring donations to many worthy causes, and I doubt that those who benefited care about her motivations. Which is a good thing, because her motivations don't seem to have been very creditable.

Miss Hays reveals that Diana suggested to her secretary Patrick Jephson that they go to Calcutta to visit Mother Teresa for Christmas. Mother Teresa requested that instead Diana visit her order's alcohol rehabilitation center in London. When Mr. Jephson relayed this news to her, he reports in his book, "there was a long, hurt, and unloved silence at the other end of the line". She never did visit the rehab center.

Miss Hays also mentions that a newspaper printed a card that one could cut out and keep in one's wallet: "In the event of an accident I do not wish to be visited by the Princess of Wales." The book also explains, "In becoming, in effect, a movie star, the princess brought the monarchy down to a level heretofore unimaginable." No wonder crass modern people love her.

There is also a very good chapter about Wallis Simpson, and now I finally feel that I understand her story. It was a love story - on the part of Edward VIII. Mrs. Simpson was after the largest coup in the history of gold diggers, as revenge on the world for the humiliation of having grown up poor. Miss Hays perceptively sums up how the American divorcée overplayed her hand: "Mrs. Simpson was depending on a man who was so besotted with love that he would do anything to marry her. She lost control of him because of the intensity of her hold over him."

Poor Mrs. Simpson was appalled when she discovered that instead of a king, she was getting a mere duke. She likely would have preferred to be the mistress of the king than a duchess. In fact, when it began to become apparent that she would not be able to become queen, Mrs. Simpson tried to break off the relationship - she was probably rather bored with her lover at that stage. But having been cast in the public's imagination as the woman for whom a man gave up a throne, she had little choice but to stick with him.

Thus go two of the alleged great fairy tales of the twentieth century.

New blog!

Welcome to fellow American monarchist blogger Mike Fulton at ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ NIKA.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Sigh.

Prince Harry To Get Race Equality Lessons

The Prince has been ordered to attend a racial equality and diversity course, for the second time.


If you are stupid enough to believe that there was anything objectionable about his remarks, you are much too stupid - or too ideologically hysterical - to comprehend anything in this blog. Or pretty much anywhere else. Go away and peruse something more at your intellectual level, like "Beavis and Butthead".

Anyway. The above absurdity is what happens when society allows the rabble to criticize its betters.

EDIT: I guess anyone can play at the "insanely sensitive" game. I just put the third season disk of "A Bit of Fry & Laurie" (a show I highly recommend) into my DVD player. When I selected "Play", the menu image dissolved into little squares before the episode started. For about a tenth of a second, the pattern looked kind of like a swastika. I'll sue them for insensitive antisemitic symbols.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Great Authority versus Limited Authority, and, The Problem With Mencius Moldbug

A few months ago, I noticed what I thought might be merely a mental quirk of my own. I tend to trust those with high rank, with a great deal of power, more than those with only a low rank and a small amount of power. That is to say, I consider those with small authority far more likely to abuse it. The City Council member is, in my judgment, far more likely to pass laws just for the thrill of throwing his weight around than a governor or president is.

I thought perhaps that I might have this attitude simply because in my life, I have encountered many petty tyrants.

Then today, the ever-fascinating Mencius Moldbug says this reflection on the tragedy of the commons:

Ie: if you are a fish, you want all fish to be owned by a King of Fishermen. So long as our fisher king is rational, this "single owner" will govern his fisheries with a strong and kindly hand, maximizing returns over an infinite time horizon, bringing peace, freedom and prosperity to cod, pollock, and sea-bass alike.

But if we fracture this coherent authority into two competing authorities, each can gain by stealing fish from the other. The more authority is fractured, the more predatory it becomes. Thus, the infallible recipe for a sadistic and predatory state: internal competition for power.


He then credits this insight to Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, or, The Natural Power of Kings.

Seems my instincts were perhaps better than I had thought.

As long as I am on the subject of Mr. Moldbug, I might as well write some thoughts on him I have been meaning to discuss.

Mencius Moldbug is one of my favorite bloggers. I read his site faithfully, and read the entire archives. He is excellent for those who, as Cassandra Goldman put it, want to install a pre-1960 OS on their brains. He tells you everything your history textbooks didn't want you to find out. He presents an almost forgotten perspective on such things as democracy.

Many monarchists enjoy his blog, but he is not in fact a monarchist, despite his opposition to democracy. His proposal, if I may oversimplify, is that governments should be run like corporations, and the CEO's job and the source of his profits should be to see to it that the inhabitants are safe and healthy. This would unquestionably be better than the current system of voting blocks choosing authorities who will force the rest of the population to give in to the block's desires and pressure groups conniving to force their pet notions on the populace, but there is a problem.

The problem has to do with Mr. Moldbug's temperament. He is a science fiction buff - indeed, his solution to crime is straight out of science fiction - and secular and a libertarian. He simply happens, as a few people always do, to be insensitive to certain sentiments that motivate a vast swathe of human behavior. He does not feel the response most of us do to, for example, tradition, to our royal families if we have them (or even, for that matter, if we don't), and of course to religion. He is aware of it, but because he himself does not feel it, he underestimates the vital role these things play for almost everyone else. Yes, even to progressives, who are forced to create mutated versions of these things to compensate, which is why American Democrats devour People magazine articles about the marital troubles of the Windsors, and why Ann Coulter was able to devote an entire book to pointing out how much like a religion liberalism is.

Democracy is no guarantee of freedom

Democracy is no guarantee of freedom

For most of Western history, democracy was feared precisely because of its effect on human liberty. Democratic governments, most thinkers believed, would force everyone to think and act the same, including people with unique and real talent to contribute to society. The purpose of government is to protect people in their lives, liberty, and property. Democracy is inclined to take the property of one and give it to another--that is, to "redistribute wealth" in our Orwellian argot--whether from the rich to the poor, as the ancients believed, or as is more common today, from the politically impotent to the politically powerful. When unchecked, democracy tends not to respect the rights of individuals. One need only think of the terror of Robespierre, who professed democratic aims, or of the evil of Hitler, who--we too readily forget--was democratically elected.

Friday, February 6, 2009

The younger generation and their new-fangled measuring systems

Some of my European internet friends have defended the metric system and the euro to me, not on theoretical grounds, but on those of convenience. The older ones are defending it because they remember crossing a border and getting in trouble in a restaurant or store because they hadn't exchanged enough money.

It would be the utmost hypocrisy for me, an American addicted to the convenience of ATMs and 24-hour grocery stores, to deny foreigners similar convenience. Especially since, unlike most Europeans who mostly live in countries only slightly larger than the state I grew up in, I would have to drive for three days* to get to a location where places of business might demand a different currency.

But surely there is a better solution than imposing an artificial currency on multiple nations and depriving them of their proper one. Couldn't restaurants and stores close to borders offer currency exchange as one of their services? Or perhaps European credit cards could pay merchants in different currencies? There must be a better solution, a non-tyrannical one.

The younger ones, those who were born too late to see E.T. in the theater, are defending euros and the metric system because they're used to it and would find it difficult to switch over. However, they expressed sympathy for Americans, trying to grasp measurements other than the ones we grew up with, because they find it difficult to relate to Imperial measures when they need to.

And you see, this is how the changes will be put over: by convenience and by indoctrinating the young. We can protest and reason and resist all we want, but they know that our children have been brainwashed into the new systems and will give in easily. Remember the other day, when I was talking about how the purpose of compulsory education is to deprive parents of control over what their children are taught so that the children can be brainwashed to reject the values, morals and measurement systems of their parents? This is one example. An Englishman of P.G. Wodehouse's generation would have horsewhipped a schoolmaster or governess who taught his offspring the metric system. Today's parents are not permitted to horsewhip their children's teachers, though it should be obvious that horsewhipping one's children's teachers is a basic human right, as well as being necessary for the preservation of standards.


Note: Here, about two minutes in or so, Eddie Izzard describes the American experiment with the metric system.


*For at least 1,100 miles. I have no idea how many kilometers.

Ah, democracy!

Today I was discussing the metric system with some of my online friends. Most of them are more or less in sympathy with my dislike of it, but they consider my deep-seated anger over it excessive. (I think they drew this conclusion when I suggested hanging all elected officials and government employees who supported it. I really don't see the problem here. Wait'll they hear what I want to do to those who support the euro.)

This extended into a discussion of euros vs. legitimate monetary units such as the mark, franc, pound, etc. Many of the Europeans were wistful about seeing their proper currency go, but they accepted it as inevitable and necessary. And I know that many people have resisted the metric system, and of course many citizens of European countries have tried to resist the EU itself. But no matter how clear the citizenry makes its wishes about these things, the governments continue to meddle in their lives, changing things that don't need changing, forcing them to change useful habits to meet the whims of some bureaucrat in Brussels.

Democracy: the system that allows you to vote for the people who will shove things you don't want down your throat.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

On War #289: His Majesty’s Birthday

This week marks the birthday of my liege lord and reporting senior, Kaiser Wilhelm II. As usual, I placed a call over my 1918 telephone to offer my felicitations and ask how our poor world looks from the heights of Mount Olympus.

This time, my call was routed from Berlin to our naval airship base at Nordholz. His majesty, it seems, has taken to the air.
Looks like I'm not the only American Jewish monarchist out there.

Why do governments hate aristocrats?

I can answer this best by first discussing a parallel example. Many progressives assume that governments relish forcing Christianity, or other religions, onto their helpless citizens to oppress them. As a matter of fact, governments hate religion. The only exceptions are the creeds of ancient times which decreed that the king was a god. But governments did their best to nip Judaism and Christianity in the bud, chiefly by killing as many Jews and later Christians as possible, because both explicitly deny heads of state any special place in paradise.

The fact is, governments hate religion because it implies an authority higher than themselves. They wish to believe that their citizens have whatever rights they choose to grant them, not that we have unalienable ones endowed by our Creator. They wish to believe that right and wrong are what they decree, not what the Creator has decreed, and the idea that a politician might have to answer for his misdeeds in the next world is intolerable. Indeed, progressives cannot endure the idea of answering for one's misdeeds in this life.

This is not only a theological conviction, but also a subtle assumption which underlies a society which is basically religious. I spent my youth as an atheist or agnostic before regaining my faith, but now I find that the more I reflect on the matter, the more I see that the inherent humility of belief in God is immeasurably beneficial to society and to the individual. Not that I am opposed to pride, I most emphatically am not, but there is a difference between healthy pride and hubris, and today most of humanity is committing the latter. People who believe in the God of Abraham will find it difficult to convince themselves that their utopian social engineering will fundamentally alter His creatures.

Of course, governments are pragmatic beasts and will use whatever means at their disposal to achieve their ends. They would really rather not have people going around believing that they were made in God's image and that there is an authority higher than that of the Supreme Court, but since people who have been introduced to ethical monotheism will cling to such notions, they use them. The Nazis, for example, did not hesitate to use Catholicism for their own Satanic ends, even though they fully intended to eventually get rid of the Jewish cult known as Christianity and make their faux Odinism the state religion. And of course, elected officials have to pay lip service to the faith of the masses, whatever they actually believe which is why in America we have the spectacle of senators who support pro-abortion laws trying to take communion in the Catholic churches they attend.

The eagerness with which governments toss aside aristocrats the moment they think they can ought to be a caution to us all. Naturally it is spun as a levelling of the playing field, taking those nasty unearned privileges away from the dukes and earls so that they won't have it any better than the rest of us.

What the advocates of such measures are trying to hide from us is that they are robbing us of our protectors. The Church and the family were once bulwarks against encroachment of the State; so too were the aristocracy.

To illustrate, let me give an example from my own nation's history: Prohibition. I gather that at the time, Europeans were endlessly amused that the colonies had taken such a foolish measure. Remember that at that time, European governments were still tied strongly to the aristocracy. There is a reason that Prohibition happened in a republic and not in a monarchy. There was a voting bloc that wanted Prohibition, and politicians, uncaring of the impossibility of the enforcement or the inevitable consequences, delivered, ensuring their elections the next time around. As we monarchists keep pointing out, elected politicians don't have the option of thinking long-term.

Imagine if the Temperance fanatics had campaigned in England of that time. They would have had to put their proposal of outlawing alcohol before titled men who did not need the masses' approval to keep their seats in the House of Lords. If my British English were better I could not doubt write an amusing imaginary dialogue between a couple of earls at their club, discussing the fanatics who wanted Temperance over their brandy and cigars. They would have taken the idea no more seriously than they would have taken the proposals of Roderick Spode to guarantee the right of every freeborn Englishman to grow his own potatoes and to measure the knees of every adult British male, not least because they themselves were not about to give up their after-dinner brandy. The idea that the law might also one day deny them their cigars would have struck them as equally laughable.

(I have not been able to determine precisely why progressives have revived the Nazi's anti-smoking program with such zeal, but I have one theory. That Nature should yield a substance that gives so much pleasure without impairing the faculties is irrefutable proof that God loves us. That, of course, is the last thing a progressive wants anybody finding out.)

Another example: every conservative or traditionalist is well acquainted with the corruption and general uselessness of today's schools. I could go on for hours, and sometimes do, about the misinformation my own teachers delivered to me. One of them informed us that American money is on a gold standard. She wasn't incorrect, she was merely fifty years behind the times. This is only one of a thousand examples I could give; would you believe a high school English teacher who believed that the past tense of "sneak" is "snuck"? And schools have become intolerably dangerous, not only because of inter-student violence, but also because female teachers are beginning to molest their young male pupils in ever-increasing numbers. According to a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, a full ten percent of students are sexually abused at school, by other students or by teachers.

In the days of aristocracy, before compulsory education and committees of "experts" determining how children should be taught, this kind of low standard and peril would have been unthinkable. What people are not considering is the character of today's teachers. With how many hours one has spent in a lecture hall as the main requirement, and government agencies appointed by elected officials as the authorities, women who in any past era would never have been allowed near impressionable children are allowed to spend all day indoctrinating them. With perhaps four or five exceptions, all of the teachers I have met, during my school days or socially as an adult, have been women of exceedingly bad character. They go into that line of work because there is very little supervision or oversight; from the university classroom they go straight into a school classroom where they are treated as if they were authority figures. In addition, they tend to be people who wish to practice petty tyranny, and can only do it by dealing with people who legally have no freedom and no rights, who are kept in her presence by physical force and have no way of escaping or defending themselves. The astoundingly petty crimes most of them wish to commit consist of saying nasty things to children. That an adult who finds satisfaction in being sarcastic to a six-year-old is treated as if she were a functioning human being is only one sign of the insanity of modern society.

It is easy for a traditionally minded adult to see that these women, all exceedingly disadvanted in intelligence, morals, and etiquette, have chosen a profession that gives them the chance to sass their betters. And given their backgrounds and natural endowments, nearly everyone is their betters.

Such people will always exist, and will certainly prey on children whenever they get the chance. But today, this riffraff has the entire force of Western governments ensuring that they have a plentiful daily supply of children to lie to, brainwash, sneer at and possibly molest. In my country, it was labor unions that used their voting bloc to push compulsory education through, for the mercenary reason that they wanted the jobs children were doing for their union members. Only a politician at the mercy of the cupidity of voters could have done such a thing. Had such a proposal come before the House of Lords, the reaction would have been, "What, are we to put the education of our own children into the hands of others? Robbing us of our authority in the matter? Certainly not!"

Let us compare the way today's elected governments deal with bad teachers to the way an aristocrat of a century ago would have. First, the aristocrat:

"You won't believe this, but my son came home a few days ago and said that his teacher had told him that 'snuck' is the past tense of 'sneak', and that our monetary system is still the one we discarded the year my father met my mother! And you wouldn't believe how impertinently the blighter spoke to my son. My son, who will be the fifteenth Earl of Puddle-dock! How must the children of common people be treated, if a future earl is expected to swallow such cheek? I told the school at once that the blighter must be sacked or not a decent family in the realm will send their sons to them, and of course they did at once. Good riddance to bad rubbish."

Now, let us suppose that one of today's parents in America or Europe places similar complaints before their school principal or school board. The principal or member of the school board would say, in effect, "The Department of Education and the NEA [or the national equivalent] have determined that Miss Smith is a perfectly qualified teacher, and the decision is theirs, not yours. You are a mere parent and can't possibly be qualified to determine what your child needs. If you have enough money you can send your child to another school, but those teachers also will be chosen by the DEA and NEA. Maybe if you're a millionaire and donate a pile of money to a private school that's about to go under, then they might be willing to fire a teacher you consider unfit, but other than that, they're just going to engage you in a lot of 'dialogue' until you admit that their teachers are just fine. And if you try to keep your child home, at least until you find a better school for him, the police will come to drag him to class and you will be fined or arrested. Have a nice day."

Peregrine Worsthorne theorized, in his Democracy Needs Aristocracy, that aristocrats are the guardians of liberty for all of us. The more one contemplates the democratic modern world, the more clear this truth is.