Category Archives: children

Notes on the indoctrination of children

Dalrymple is in favour of indoctrinating children so that they are

  • polite and respectful to their elders
  • eschew pop music
  • do not chew gum
  • resist the temptation to drop litter
  • refrain from sending text messages to their friends in restaurants

But he is against indoctrinating children

on contentious political matters, where their minds are filled with ill-digested slogans from which they never recover the ability to think independently.

Dalrymple’s impression is that children

have become increasingly like those who have been to madrassas, except that what they have been taught is not the Koran but a vulgate of political correctness.

When he talks to young people, he senses that they have been

brainwashed, and that some thoughts are beyond the range of their neuronal possibilities. When I say that I am uncertain about global warming, they react as I presume people would if, in Mecca, I denied the existence of God and alluded to the less attractive characteristics of Mohammed even as depicted by early Moslems.

‘I don’t care what you all say: there is no Allah and Mohammed is not his prophet’

Save the whale and the worm

Dalrymple observes that the many children at the Marche pour le climat

looked almost as pleased with themselves as their parents, who were very pleased indeed. I daresay that had I asked the children why they were at the demonstration, they would have been able, like performing monkeys, to say something about saving the planet, making it safe for the whales, dolphins, and pandas.

Dalrymple himself has nothing against the whales, dolphins, and pandas,

in fact I much prefer a world in which there are such creatures.

He confesses, however, that he is not so sure about Ascaris lumbricoides,

the absolutely disgusting, large white roundworm that parasitises the human intestine, sometimes in large numbers, and emerges through various orifices.

How the English rear their young

British children, writes Dalrymple,

are regularly found to be the most miserable in Europe. This is because a large proportion of parents fear or hate their children, and by the time they have finished bringing them up are right to do so: which does not, of course, absolve them of their responsibility.

The preferred English method of child-rearing is

neglect by indulgence, with or without a little violence and emotional abuse thrown in. By the end of childhood, a British child is considerably more likely to have a television in its room than a father living at home.

Darling, your meal replacement product is on the table

Screen Shot 2015-12-01 at 07.34.34In his Find Out What the Children are Doing and Tell Them to Stop It and Other Essays (2015), Dalrymple points out, among other things, that doctors don’t have all the answers. He says in the foreword:

I still have faith in the enterprise of medicine and when I have been seriously ill have had no cause to regret my faith. But progress is rather less straightforward than I had imagined before I started to write these pieces.

Screen Shot 2015-12-01 at 07.37.05Screen Shot 2015-12-01 at 07.37.17

A rapists’ charter

Ann M. Starrs

Ann M. Starrs: flatulent and at the same time chilling

Starry night

Dalrymple points out that some of the quotations (from articles inside the journal) found on the cover of the Lancet are

of such an unctuous sententiousness that they make Mr Podsnap seem like a neurotic self-doubter. They are usually inexact, flatulent, self-important, and frequently stupid.

He cites a passage taken from the article A Lancet Commission on sexual and reproductive health and rights: going beyond the Sustainable Development Goals. It is the work of Ann M. Starrs, described as president and chief executive officer of something called the Guttmacher Institute, which appears to be devoted to advancing the cause of abortion. Starrs’ words are considered so luminous that the Lancet’s editor reproduces them in large type on the front page:

Screen Shot 2015-09-26 at 09.10.37

The Lancet: self-important and frequently stupid

Ann M. Starrs’ Declaration of Sexual Rights

Sexuality and reproduction are universal concerns that affect every human being. Although there has been great progress in recent decades, the global community must now expedite and expand that progress to be more inclusive and comprehensive. A new agenda for sexual and reproductive health and rights is needed that recognises the full scope of people’s sexual and reproductive health needs, and enables all people to choose whether, when, and with whom to engage in sexual activity; to choose whether and when to have children; and to access the means to do so in good health.

The emotion in the reader of this, writes Dalrymple,

is similar to that aroused by a badly scratched record or a whining child.

The purpose of Starrs’ words, he points out,

is to create in the reader the impression of the writer as generous and broad-minded, denial of whose principles establishes him who would deny them as a bigot.

Yet Starrs’ words are

Screen Shot 2015-09-26 at 09.20.16

No perversion is too perverse for Ann M. Starrs

a rapists’ charter; no perversion is too perverse to fall under their permissive rubric.

Dalrymple notes that there have been men who have been able to achieve orgasm only by

  • derailing trains, or
  • paddling their hands in the entrails of the people they have killed

He asks:

Ought the full scope of their sexual needs have been met?

Dalrymple says:

That people ought to be able to have sex when they choose, with whom they choose, entails that they should be able to force themselves on others even in public. There can be no when without a corresponding where, for sexual desire (impossible to distinguish from need) does not always arise at moments hitherto considered appropriate.

He concludes:

From the fate of children under this regime of inalienable rights to be included in the proposed Declaration of Sexual Rights, it is best to avert one’s mind.

Dalrympian meditations

Screen Shot 2015-09-23 at 08.48.36It is accepted without argument today, writes Dalrymple, that a man

is not in the least responsible for his personality or character.

This is, he points out,

a far cry from Marcus Aurelius’s view that a man could, and ought to, cultivate his own character.

Social liberals, he asserts, are too guilty or cowardly to acknowledge the realities of the social universe they have wrought, one in which there is

no place for children or childhood.

Believing that man is the product of his environment, social liberals

have nevertheless set about creating an environment from which it is truly difficult to escape, by closing off all the avenues and bolt-holes. They have destroyed the family and any notion of progress or improvement. They have made a world in which the only freedom is self-indulgence, a world from which—most terrible of all—prison can sometimes be a liberation.

Children’s tastes should be educated and not indulged

Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 22.40.33The postage stamps on a couple of letters Dalrymple receives cause him ask whether the French posts are

merely reacting to, or creating, public taste.

He finds the message of the stamps

bureaucratically condescending and infantilising.

Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 22.40.49The stamps’ crudity of design and colouration

is part of a general trend to the use of such designs and primary colours. One has only to think of McDonald’s restaurants or the logo of Toys ‘R’ Us.

Children’s toys

E.H. Shepard

E.H. Shepard’s rendering

are now largely of plastic in the brightest reds, blues, greens and yellows. Public playgrounds have slides and climbing frames in the same colours.

The iconography of Winnie-the-Pooh

has changed from the subtle and tender drawings of Ernest Shepard to the crude and highly coloured Disney drawings.

Children

are attracted naturally by bright colours, of course. That is why their tastes should be educated and not just indulged, or we will end up with a world of Bonnes vacances.

Disney

The Disney version

Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 23.06.24Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 23.09.22

The Church of England (Bolshevik)

Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 07.56.41Aesthetic vandalism

There is hardly a beautiful church in the country, writes Dalrymple,

whose interior the Church of England has not wrecked by its pursuit of false gods. If ever a Bolshevik government were to come to power it would find its work of turning churches into museums of religion and atheism half-done.

Come into the cathedral, children. We've cleared away all that boring religious stuff to make it more relevant to you

Suffer the little yobs to come into the cathedral: we’ve cleared away all that boring religious stuff to make it more relevant to them

Visual desecration

In Winchester cathedral, for example, you will find

  • many dreadful modern artworks
  • stacks of steel chairs and other things one expects to find in a furniture warehouse
  • many brightly-coloured notices
  • a large cardboard cutout of a dinosaur
  • a prominent notice warning people to watch their step at the entrance to a side-chapel

The desecration is

indicative of a loss of confidence, of faith. There is nothing dedicated to the glory of God because there is no God.

I don't care what you say; those side-chapels are lethal

I don’t care what you say, those side-chapels are lethal

Authors of the barbarism

Among the many notices is one

informing visitors who is in the cathedral hierarchy, just as hospitals put up notices with photos of the most important people in the hospital (Director of Strategic Planning, Director of Diversity, Director of Quality Assurance, etc.)

Who is it exactly who presides over this aesthetic barbarism?

The aesthetic barbarism is presided over by the bishop, Dr Spacely-Trellis

Thus we may know who presides over

this mess, this aesthetic barbarism.

It is, of course, of a piece with what has been done to Winchester as a whole by the stupid, barbaric city council

in concert with the crudest commercial interests.

Delirious joy of rioting and looting

Panama City

Panama City

A day out that combines the pleasures of destruction with those of moral indignation

Dalrymple recounts that while working as a journalist, he once reported on a riot in Panama City

in which I saw middle-class people throwing bricks through windows and making bonfires in the street. I recognised one of the rioters dining in an expensive restaurant that same night.

Baltimore

Baltimore

Rioters, writes Dalrymple, are

a self-selected group, who are fully aware of what rioters are likely to do.

He points out that in the London riots of 2011, rioters

smashed and looted every store in a street except the bookstore, the only one to remain with its windows and stock entirely intact. The rioters had no use or desire for books.

London

London

And when eventually the police,

who took a long time to intervene, arrested some of the rioters engaged in the gravest actions, it turned out that the majority had serious criminal records.

During the Parisian riots of 2005, the rioters

burned thousands of cars belonging to people very similar to themselves, and who lived in the same area as they.

Paris

Paris

This, Dalrymple points out, was hardly

the manifestation of an acute sense of injustice. If anything, it was a manifestation of wounded amour propre, for the rioters would never have rioted against the kind of injustices that people such as they committed every day.

The rioters

expect from the authorities a completely different standard of behaviour from that they exhibit themselves: they are children, the authorities parents.

 

 

Children in Britain have a more difficult and less attractive existence than children in any comparable European country

Early promise

Early promise

The British, writes Dalrymple, are

more afraid of their children than any other people.

The child-rearing method of the British is

neglect tempered by overindulgence, with outbursts of exasperation. Never have I seen elsewhere such public shrieking at children by maternal Termagants as in Britain.