Left-inspired practise of going to great lengths to shield
[children] from experience of failure and to tell [them] only good
things about themselves is an appalling preparation for life. In
adulthood, the vast majority of people are going to have to
reconcile themselves to mundane jobs and no more than mediocrity in
achievement. Illusions of themselves as 'special' are going to be
sorely disappointed" [source].
"ITV's poignant record
of several real lives began 49 years ago with Seven Up! and has now
reached 56 Up. Hardly anybody can watch this account of disappointed
hopes, redemption and human fortitude without tears. But what makes
me saddest of all is to see the faces of the original children. You
don't see seven-year-old children with faces like that anymore. The
innocence has already gone. How did we let that happen?" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 20 May 2012].
"Once, there was a world
without teenagers. Literally, 'teenager', the word itself, doesn't
pop into the lexicon much before 1941. That means that for all but
this most recent period of history, there were children and there
were adults. Children in their teen years aspired to adulthood;
significantly, they didn't aspire to adolescence. Certainly, men and
women didn't aspire to remain teenagers. Today, turning thirteen,
instead of bringing children closer to an adult world, launches them
into a teen universe. And due to the hold our culture has placed on
the maturation process, that's where they're likely to find the
adults. Most of us have grown up - or, at least, grown - into this
new kind of adulthood, this perpetual adolescence so much the norm
that it's difficult to recognize it as the profound civilizational
shift that it is" [source].
"Men, Protect Your
Daughters! Picture this: Some 17 year old snot nosed punk
comes over to take out your daughter, and you say, 'No you aren't
worthy of her.' Immediately everyone is up in arms over your
'judgmental' and 'harsh' position, and for 'breaking your daughter's
heart'. Ok, so let's put it another way now: You have a
beautiful, brand new $200,000 Ferrari Testarossa in front of your
house, and a snot nosed 17 year old punk comes over to take it for a
spin. Would you hand him the keys? See, what your problem is, is
that you value a car more than your daughter"
[Dr. Voddie Baucham at
"Many would argue that
Barbie-type dolls are not sexy, but the real world says something
else. It is very common in men's prisons and military barracks to
find Barbie dolls in various stages of undress sitting in prominent
places. It is a kind of hands-on pornography which they seem to find
very gratifying. Did you know that some of Barbie Dolls' biggest
fans are middle age men? Somehow, parents are badly deceived, and
their children are the victims. ... It is a healthy and natural
instinct for little girls to love babies and to imagine themselves
in the role of loving mother. Role-playing is preparation for the
future, but there is absolutely no similarity between playing baby
dolls and playing Barbie dolls. They are two different kinds of
dolls with two different purposes. What are you training your little
girl to be?" [source].
"[B]y the time they are
14, only two-thirds of British children will be living with both
their parents in a stable family environment. ... the coalition has
actively undermined the traditional family ... the family is the
greatest institution known to man. Strong families produce
responsible, aspirational, self-reliant citizens. Strong families
are potent bulwarks against totalitarian and over-mighty states.
Strong families provide their own welfare, education and personal
Precisely the reasons, of course, why governments undermine the
Mail Comment, 29 December 2012].
"A newspaper puff for
the TV snob opera Downtown Abbey says that the character Lady Mary,
whose 'husband' was killed off in the Christmas episode, will be
'coming to terms with her role as a single mother' in the new
series. See how language is twisted to hide the truth? The correct
expression is 'widow', which you may have noticed we don't hear so
much any more. Lady Mary, ... did not have a child outside wedlock.
She was married. This matters. One of the great triumphs of the
Cultural Revolution of the 1960s was to deny the importance of
marriage. The expression 'unmarried mother' was abolished, and
replaced by 'single mother'. But a widowed or deserted wife's
position is and always be utterly different from that of a woman who
deliberately has a child outside marriage. The difference is a moral
one, and that's what the revolutionaries want to abolish - morality"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 15 September 2013].
"Our opium is our
children. Ours is a culture not of ancestor worship but of
descendant worship" [Tory MP Rory Stewart, Mail on Sunday, 27
"The BBC last Tuesday
got excited about two reports - one said that attitudes towards sex
had become much more 'fluid' - or, as would once have said, more
promiscuous. In short, lifelong faithful marriage is dead. One
impartial BBC commentator openly expresses pleasure at one aspect of
this report. The other document said that gang-infested
neighbourhoods are now seeing levels of sexual violence as bad as
those in war zones. Girls as young as 11 are being raped. Sue Berelowitz, the Deputy Children's Commissioner, complained that many
simply would not accept that this was happening, warning there was a
long way to go 'before the appalling reality of sexual violence and
exploitation committed by children and young people is believed'.
There's also a long way to go before people (especially the BBC)
will see any connection between the state-sponsored destruction of
strong married families, and the growth of gangs and the cruel
exploitation of the young and weak. These follow naturally from our
moral collapse" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 01 December 2013].
"All modern Western
politicians enforce tax, social and welfare policies that have
almost destroyed lifelong, faithful marriage. They are especially
brutal to marriages in which the parents actually bring up the
children, instead of farming out the job to paid strangers.
Nowadays, such arrangements are an eccentric, costly lifestyle
choice adopted only by the old, the unfashionable or by the very
rich. So what's hypocritical about ... France's President Hollande?
[He's] only doing what [he is] urging and helping everyone else to
do. It would, of course, be different if [politicians] headed
governments that gave real incentives for marriage, and which
penalised the unmarried. But they don't. So it's not. The real
hypocrisy of modern times is the way that candidates for high office
like to pose as members of ideal, smiley nuclear families (the
nanny, of course, is always left out of the pictures). Maybe this is
a true image of their private lives. ... But it's a completely false
picture of their policies - the mad, giant subsidies for fatherless
homes, the irresistible pressure on mothers to go out to work five
minutes after the midwife has cut the cord, the divorce laws rigged
against the innocent. They should openly live the cruel, inconstant,
child-unfriendly lives they force millions of others to follow. And
if they're not prepared to do that, and to let their children suffer
the consequences, they should change their policies"
Mail on Sunday, 19 January 2014].
"Heard for the first
time, 'partner' as a verb. An expert on housing, on the radio,
explained that people were buying houses later in life because they
were 'partnering' later. Not long ago, she would have said
'marrying'. Not long in the future, nobody will say 'marrying'. It
matters" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 13 April 2014].
"We know that as the
family goes, so goes the nation. No society can survive without
strong families. That is why the enemies of society in the West have
always worked so hard, targeting families. Once the family is
weakened or destroyed, so will be the nation. All the radicals
have known this. Vladimir Lenin said, 'Destroy the family, destroy
the nation.' Simone de Beauvoir said the family is an 'obscene
bourgeois institution'. All these radicals worked overtime to see
the family undermined and decimated. Thus the defence of the family
is always a fundamental task of the rest of us. ... [O]ur first duty
is to protect and promote the most enduring, the most valuable, and
the most child-friendly institutions known to man"
"Family is about children and their welfare. An attack on family is
an attack on children, for family is the fortress and well being of
children" [Comment at
"I wrote a book a few
years ago about religion and science and I summarised the difference
between them in two sentences: 'Science takes things apart to see
how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean'.
And that's a way of thinking about culture also. Does it put things
together or does it take them apart? What made the traditional
family remarkable, ... is what it brought together: sexual drive,
physical desire, friendship, companionship, emotional kinship and
love, the begetting of children and their protection and care, their
early education and induction into an identity and a history. Seldom
has any institution woven together so many different drives and
desires, roles and responsibilities. It made sense of the world and
gave it a human face, the face of love. For a whole variety of
reasons, ... some to do with moral change like the idea that we are
free to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others, some
to do with a transfer of responsibilities from the individual to the
state, and other and more profound changes in the culture of the
West, almost everything that marriage once brought together has now
been split apart. ... This is creating a divide within societies the
like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of 'two
nations' a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow
up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them
into being will, on average, be healthier physically and
emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will
have more successful relationships , be happier and live longer.
And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all
cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic
instances of what Friedrich Hayek called 'the fatal conceit' that
somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the
lessons of biology and history. ... [O]ur compassion for those who
live differently should not inhibit us from being advocates for the
single most humanising institution in history. The family, man,
woman, and child, is not one lifestyle choice among many. It is the
best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations
and enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love. It
is where we learn the delicate choreography of relationship and how
to handle the inevitable conflicts within any human group. It is
where we first take the risk of giving and receiving love. It is
where one generation passes on its values to the next, ensuring the
continuity of a civilization. For any society, the family is the
crucible of its future, and for the sake of our children's future,
we must be its defenders" [source].
"Once there was a world
without teenagers. Literally. 'Teenager,' the word itself, doesn't
pop into the lexicon much before 1941. This speaks volumes about the
last few millennia. In all those many centuries, nobody thought to
mention 'teenagers' because there was nothing, apparently, to think
of mentioning. In considering what I like to call 'the death of the
grown-up', it's important to keep a fix on this fact: that for all
but this most recent episode of human history, there were children
and there were adults. Children in their teen years aspired to
adulthood; significantly, they didn't aspire to adolescence.
Certainly, adults didn't aspire to remain teenagers"
The Death of the Grown-Up, (2007), p.1].
"The term 'generation
snowflake' started in America. Parents cherished their offspring as
'precious little snowflakes', each alike but unique, or 'everyone is
special' ... When those smothered infants grew into adults they were
lampooned by the same parental generation for melting at any small
amount of difficulty. 'Snowflake' is just a fancy word for 'drip'"
"[W]e have a mega-teen
culture which the entire world orbits around, and we have millions
of adults who are stuck in perpetual adolescence, seeking to remain
teens. Coupled with all this is the out-of-control offence industry
which says we have a fundamental right to never be offended, never
to feel bad, and never to have our feelings hurt. That has resulted
in a generation of wilted dandelions and precious pansies. A bunch
of spoiled brats ... coddled, spoiled narcissists"
"What to do? It's not
enough to yell, 'stop,' or even 'grow up'. It's a start,
though, if, ... we withstand the likely excruciating growing pains
to undertake a serious, candid reexamination of the human condition
... as parents who need to guide children to maturity; [and] as
individuals who need to reimpose boundaries on personal behaviour"
[Diana West, The Death of the Grown-Up, (2007), p.217].
"Thank Freud and Jung and the
Christians who 'incorporated' these insights from God-rejecting
immoral intellectuals into their own true views of man which came
from a holy God. Grieve for these adult kinds who cannot see what
they have lost because of the faithlessness they have inherited.
Only the gospel which sanctifies will heal the hurt of the daughter
of My people says the Lord"
"[T]his was all prophesied. The
scriptures tell us about the lack of respect [for] and input from
fathers and the general disrespect for men (Isaiah 3:12). This
generation suffers from a completely irrational hatred of anything
'paternalistic'. See also Malachi 4:6 and Luke 1:17" [comment
UN 'Children's Commissars'
Call for Ban on Smacking
"This would be a great idea, but it simply will not work. Let us
take the analogy a bit further. Will the state promise never to use
violence on it s citizens? No, I thought not. If the state will not
renounce violence to enforce its will on its citizens, why would
that be? Surely it is not because, ultimately, the only means of
enforcing the will of one party on a recalcitrant other is by use of
force. Anyone who has had children and whose children are more than
ten years old will know of the problems often referred to as the
'terrible twos' when the child throws a tantrum and its favourite
word is 'No!'" [comment at
"What's unnerving about this, taking it further, is that it's
seeking to remove the respect and authority of parents, which goes
hand-in-hand with the threat of force and punishment, and in doing
do securing the state's monopoly on the use of force, and thus
securing its respect and authority"
"Of course no one wants to see children beaten up by their parents,
or for that matter the all too common parenting style which sees
adults laughing at children being undisciplined, and in the next
breath ... finding the same behaviour annoying, and then reacting in
anger without thinking with violence - both physical and otherwise.
That said, pain works. It's been working for millions [sic] of
years, since [God] introduced a central nervous system with pain
receptors. For aeons living things learned don't do that, it hurts.
What matters as long [as it's] with reasonable force, is that the
discipliner has a cool head"
"A child does not have the ability to recognise the outcome of their
actions, sometimes fatal (fork in socket). Or they do recognise
their actions (which are disrupting all around them), are preventing
education or creating distress but it is much to their amusement
because they are the centre of attention. This all stops with a
corrective smack as a last resort at an early age. This is a short
shock but instils respect. This feminisation of our schooling and
removal of competition (so the darlings can't lose) is the problem,
hence poor education and the inability to find work. The real world
gives both" [comment at
"You can't teach a two-year old by 'reasoning'. If you ban smacking
all that will happen is that your children will learn about violence
from other little children at school. It won't be pleasant, and they
won't learn the right lesson. Rather than: 'don't misbehave' they
will learn that 'might makes right'"
"These people should mind their own business. I don't care what they
think, they have had no part in raising my kids nor is it any
business of theirs to interfere in the family home. Far too many
people social engineering in this country. If it's not the state
trying to enforce acceptance of deviancy it is some other busy body
trying to interfere with family life. There is a case for a few
violent parents who need the current law used against them but
"I was belted in school
for being a cheeky wee bass and guess what it made me think about my
actions in the future, always at the back of my mind was the
probability of the belt for misbehaviour. When I stepped out of line
at home I was slippered, it taught me right from wrong and to obey
set rules and instilled respect for my parents and elders, etc. Now
we don't have corporal punishment in schools the 'kids' are running
amok and even assault and stab teachers, now there is a lack of good
discipline in the home thanks to liberals constantly interfering in
family life, children are growing up with a lack of respect and
unable to understand boundaries and basic rules in society. This is
what happens when you spare the rod and spoil the child and our
children are the most spoiled in the world it seems"
"These people have obviously never had children" /
"The best children I've seen are the ones that have discipline. I
don't know a single parent that smacks their children that ever
enjoys smacking them either, but sometimes it has to be done, and
it's done as a very last resort, sparingly" /
"Parents today seem to want to be friends with their kids rather
than, well, parents" / "Don't smack them -
take them to McDonald's and make them obese" /
"Spare the rod, spoil the child. Just another attack on Christendom"
/ "Would that parents smacked their little darlings a
little more regularly. If they had perhaps we would not have so many
spoiled-brat liberals telling the rest of us what to do"
Extracts from the
The Origin of 'Identity Politics' & 'Political Correctness'
"The central 'theory'
[of 'identity politics'] was a development of the anti-family
rhetoric of nineteenth century socialists taken up and further
radicalised by Marx and particularly Engels to conceptualise the
family as an aberration resulting, it was imagined, from
'capitalism' somehow 'repressing' 'the workers', to the extent that
supposedly they became psychologically dysfunctional. Marxism per se
was supplanted by a theory of culturally based personal relations,
popularised later most notably by Marcuse amongst many others"
"In the transition to
'identity politics', the quintessential form of 'oppression' (sic)
in Marxian imagination changed with the family replacing the
workplace as the putative key locus of conflict; transferring from
'the boss' lording it over 'the worker' to the man 'dominating' the
"The aim was to
eliminate what were seen as the mere 'roles' of the mother and
father, so that, it was envisaged, all distinction between
masculinity and femininity would disappear, taking with it the
'patriarchy' (sic) supposedly the foundation of 'capitalism'. This
'theory' re the family lacked even internal consistency. With the
family mistakenly considered a product of 'capitalism' ... then
merely removing the family hardly thereby removes 'capitalism',
which by the rationale of the 'theory' surely would manifest in
other ways to either 'oppress' or somehow 'fool' 'the workers'"
"As the head of the
family, the man (husband/father) was held to be the incarnation of
'oppression' from which the woman (wife/mother) needed to be
'liberated'. So it was that 'the workers' as formerly considered
'the agents of change' and the group destined to be 'liberated',
were replaced in Marxian imagination by women, heralding the
'feminist Marxism' we see today"
"The Frankfurt School
believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the
hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the
problems facing society, then that society would never reach the
state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary
to provoke socialist revolution.
Their task, therefore, was as
swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do
this they called for the most negative destructive criticism
possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to
de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the
'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a
virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as
one of their members noted.
To further the advance
of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School
recommended (among other things):
(1) the creation of racism
(2) continual change to create confusion,
(3) the teaching
of sex and homosexuality to children,
(4) the undermining of
schools' and teachers' authority,
(5) huge immigration to destroy
(6) the promotion of excessive drinking,
(7) emptying of
(8) an unreliable legal system with bias against victims
(9) dependency on the state or state benefits,
control and dumbing down of media,
(11) encouraging the breakdown of
One of the main ideas
of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism'
- the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences
between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships
between men and women. To further their aims they would:
the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and
mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary
educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the
education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance
- hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women
to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."
eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to
create a social state:
Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the
Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as
possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight
back if you are providing everything for them to live;
- Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That wa6y you are
able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty;
Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from
the Government. That way you are able to create a police state;
Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives
(Food, Housing, and Income);
Education - Take control of that people read and listen
to - take control of what children learn in school;
Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government
Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and
the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier
to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor" [source].
"Woe unto them that call evil
good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
note that the inclusion of any quotation or item on this page does not
imply we would necessarily endorse the source from which the extract is
taken; neither can we necessarily vouch for any other materials by the
or any groups or
ministries or websites with which they may be associated, or any
periodicals to which they may contribute, or the
beliefs of whatever kind they may hold, or any other aspect of their
work or ministry or position.