This guy hits some good points right on the head.
If there is one trait that defines Liberalism, it is a hatred for consequences. No matter what the circumstance, Liberals are either trying to ignore, avoid, or blame others for the consequences of their own actions. Normally this would not be a problem, everyone should be free to live as goofy a life as they please, even if it happens to entail stumbling about blindly within a fog of their own self-delusions. However, the problem with Liberals is they cannot just be content with screwing up their own lives; they have to screw up the lives of those around them as well.
If a woman runs around and has unprotected sex, Liberals think the child should be killed because it is unfair to make people live with the consequences of their lack of morality. If someone had a bad childhood and has an unnatural hatred for the cherished beliefs of others, Liberals feel we should ostracize Christianity from society so these misfits do not quite so poignantly feel the sting of missing out on Christmas. Illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship so they do not have to deal with the consequences of ignoring immigration law. Disabled loved ones should be euthanized because selfish family members do not want to deal with their care. And, homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they do not want to acknowledge that two beings of the same sex cannot breed.
Reality is the greatest threat to Liberalism, not Conservatives. When reality comes crashing in, and Liberals are forced to see the consequences of their half baked ideas, their first response is to blame someone else for them. Normally, the people who get blamed will be the ones who said their ideas would never work in the first place, but since the Libs hate them, they make a convenient scapegoat. That might sound like an oxymoron, blaming others who said your ideas would not work after they have been proved right and your ideas did not work, but it far easier for Liberals to lash out in overly emotional incoherence than admit they might have ever made a mistake.So far, the only victims of Liberalism have been our society, culture, children, and way of life in general...
then he goes on to opine about North Korea.
I wish he had talked about topics like Male Teachers in Schools:
In short, girls haven’t come up. They have always done well in school. Boys have gone down. Why?
I can guess. Boys are churning wads of energy. They are physical and competitive. They want to climb things, test themselves, jump off of things, explore, drive fast, fight, behave like damn fools, and sack cities. In later years this energy may serve them well, but not yet. School is hellish for them, with its year after year of sitting, bored out of their skulls, while some drone babbles. It is worse for the bright, verging on child abuse. They hate it. I did.
Girls are more orderly, patient, accept rules with less resistance, and do their homework. They have better handwriting and cut pictures from magazines to paste into projects. They finish assignments on time. In general girls are easier to deal with, certainly for the female teachers who now are almost the only teachers.
Now, 1964 was very different from today. Families were intact. I do not remember a single kid whose parents had been divorced. There was therefore a man in the house. Adolescent boys are wild men. A man can control them. A divorced woman often has a hard time controlling daughters.
There were men in the schools. We had a hard-eyed male principal . . . . Discipline was not harsh. The boys clowned in class and engaged in pranks (I may know somewhat of this), but we knew where the limits were. There were a goodly number of male teachers, which helped us know the limits.
Further, parents would back up the teachers without question. If I had said, “EXPLETIVE YOU” to a teacher, the French Foreign Legion would have been my only choice. Facing my father would have been—how shall I put it?—unproductive.
Boys need someone who can control them until, in a few years, the internal controls are in place. Women can’t do it. Therefore we have police in the schools, and we drug boys into somnolence with amphetamines. Parents, instead of even trying to control their kids, will litigate.
Boys cease to be students and become problems, so teachers don’t like them.
Further, in the schools today we have feminization, feminization, feminization. Instead of treating girls like girls, and boys like boys, all are expected to be girls. It doesn’t work. Boys by their very nature like to roughhouse. They like contact sports. You don’t have to force them to play football. They are competitive. Women don’t understand this, and what they don’t understand, they outlaw. Today estrogenated school after estrogenated school bans dodge ball as too dangerous, outlaws tag (“They get too rough,” meaning too rough for Mrs. Teacher), and insists on “groups games led by a caring adult.”
It is hideous for boys. Everything they are, it isn’t. “Ohhhhh, let’s have a caring non-competitive game….” If he is really bright, with an IQ north of 150, he will decide that his teachers are idiots, which most of them are, and withdraw. There will be a price for this one day.
You want to end the “boy crisis”? Easy. Give boys male teachers who understand boys and care about them. Women do neither. Let them compete. It’s how they are. Encourage them to burn off energy in the gym. Reward achievement, not pretty projects. Turn them into men, not transvestites.
We reap what we sow, whether or not we recognize what "seeds" we cast around.