Square Pegs

Sorry there hasn’t been much out of me lately, a brief sojourn in Brighton (eye-opener, and not for the obvious reasons) followed by a mysterious illness have put paid to posting for a while.


One of Leg-Iron’s recurring themes recently has been the Official Standard Human and the woes lying in wait for those who do not conform, and I think a story that hit the news yesterday morning demonstrates that nicely: Children labelled with special needs may simply have been poorly taught.

Brilliant. Education is so regulated today, so full of targets and key stages and whathaveyou that there is no option but to be poorly taught, unless your child fits into the Official Standard Human model, which pretty much states that each child must be able to do x in week y of key stage z with no regard to the blindingly obvious fact that all children are unique.
One of the examples given on the BBC Breakfast programme yesterday was a child that was labelled special needs because they had difficulty with long division at the alloted hour of the alloted week of their school career: a definition that would have captured your host for I too had trouble with long division (I still can’t do it) and yet went on to pass the 11+ and later had no difficulty at all with calculus, complex number and Fourier Analysis.
Attempts to fit all children into one standard model are doomed to failure, and fail the kids at the top of the ability tree as well as those at the bottom. The obvious tendancy to label those that can’t (and probably those that can, easily, and act up through boredom) as special needs is probably more to do with teachers covering their arses than it is to do with eugenic social engineering but the effect is the same, saddling humans with a label that will stay with them for years (possibly their whole lives should they come to believe it themselves) simply because they don’t fit.

And don’t even get me started on the whole ‘we’ve been saying this for years but now a government agency says it it’s news’ thing.                      


Why, Of Course!

Today’s Daily Star features the fury of residents near Tom Miller, a teenager who has been living alone in a council house since his mother died when he was aged 15 (in 2008) and the tenancy passed to him.

Apparently there have been reports of wild parties, rampant youths and other associated behaviours.

You don’t say!


The NSPCC a “charity” with powers delegated to it by the state is lobbying for social workers to be given extra powers to accompany their already quite considerable child-snatching repertoire. So far so usual.

The odd thing is that I have just seen three spokesmen for social workers saying they don’t want any!

However Hilton Dawson, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, said that there were bigger issues facing the sector and that proposal was not needed.

He said that there were already powers for social workers to get a court order or involve the police if they need to see a child alone.

“If parents blatantly refuse or manipulate or more overtly threaten to set the dog on the social worker, they would have exactly the same recourse as the NSPCC is proposing now,” he told the BBC.

Very odd…

Packed Lunch “Danger”

A normal packed lunch, or at least it was when I was at school. Sandwiches, chocolate bar, can of coke and a packet of crisps. I ate the same almost throughout my school career and I didn’t put weight on until the last two years, when the dying days of puberty conspired with having to stay indoors at lunch to make me pile on the pounds. Previously I -like most kids- spent lunchtime running around playing football or bulldog and burning off calories. Once I left school and started work the weight fell off again.

The sub header of The Sun’s story wraps it up nicely, I think:

“Just one per cent of primary kid’s lunches meet nutritional standards set for school dinners, a study has revealed.

It’s control again. They currently can’t control what the kids bring in with them, and they hate it. The kids don’t like what Jamie thinks they should like so they bring their own. A packet of crisps and a chocolate bar never made any kid fat, provided they are outside at lunch playing the sorts of games kids play they’ll burn all those calories off anyway. It worked for decades so why wouldn’t it now? I can’t imagine, unless we are spontaneously evolving into fat bastards or something… Further down the page is another gem:

“The new study could lead to nationwide box content checks at schools.”

So now they get the little children all trained to be used to getting searched every day for “restricted foods.” What brave new world is this also getting them ready for, I wonder?

Shut Up Liam (Updated)

Our “Chief Medical Officer” is now advising us not to allow our children to drink at all under the age of 15, and only “once a week and under supervision” from 16 to 18. Oh, and we musn’t drink too much in front of them, either.
The BBC breakfast team arranged a typically lively debate, with a balanced panel including some frump from (fake?) charity DrinkAware and an A&E doctor.
Actually it was more balanced than usual, the A&E doctor didn’t agree at all, taking Bill Turnbull’s anecdotal point that when people get to university age the ones who had never touched a drop that went mental on booze. Susannah also pulled the frump up on her ridiculous analogy that you “wouldn.t put your children under a car to teach them about road safety, would you!!!”
“We’re not teaching children that getting run over is a pleasurable experience though, are we?”
Well done, another attempt to denormalise drink by the Righteous but this time even the shills at the BBC were not playing ball. I think this version of the game is up, although I’m sure we’ll have new balls in the new year.

Update: I knew it was too good to last, by the 8am headlines they were reading from autocue and showing a completely one-sided segment towing the government line. They didn’t show any parts of the interview although an edited version may have been shown after I left the house. Oh, and it’s Sian this morning, not Susannah.

Sometimes I wonder if I’ve fallen through the tv screen in my sleep and woken up in The Running Man.

To The Googler…

…who arrived at my blog via the search term “why did Hitler start the Hitler youth?”

Simple. Regimes generally find that capturing the hearts and minds of the youth of a nation is not only easier to achieve than capturing the hearts and minds of the adult population, but also has huge benefits.

The children can be, among other things, induced to keep tabs on the adults (ever see the excellent movie Fatherland?). They will also be adults themselves soon enough, and having been indoctrinated in their youth will find it hard to break free of their indoctrination upon reaching adulthood, especiallly in an environment where other ways of thinking are suppressed. This helps to ensure the future of the regime. They can also be relied upon to be more fanatic in their following whilst children than their adult counterparts.

In regimes based upon a cult of personality like Hitler’s and Mao’s, the effect can be more pronounced (rather like youth being indoctrinated in sunday school) as they will more readily accept the Leader as a god, although by no means is this the only setting that indoctrination of the young can be found.

Under our current system in the west of Gramscian Marxism, we find that leftist views are indoctrinated on our young throughout their school years, perpetrated by teachers and lecturers who had their views formed by the same system. The system long ago became self-perpetuating although recent years have seen ever-closer state control of our education system accelerating the process. Not only are our children now indoctrinated into marxist thought (without reference to the name, natch) but they get used to being assessed, searched, drugged into submission (the “difficult” ones, ie the born leaders), appraised and shoved into boxes they will stay in for the rest of their lives.

So that’s why Hitler started the Hitler Youth. It’s just good sense.

Update: No sooner do I post this, but I catch up on my RSS and this prime example drops into my lap. Read it and weep.

Child Performers

Whenever I see ‘local councils to be given greater powers’ or a similar tagline I immediately become suspicious. In this case, from a Times article outlining plans to increase the powers of local councils over child performers. Following outcry over the programme Boys and Girls Alone the government plans to not only widen the definition of child performers to include those shown in reality programmes and documentaries, but to give local councils the power to veto any television programme involving children, at their own discretion.

As one commenter on the article puts it:

Removing children from TV broadcasts also has the huge advantage that abused children in local authority care won’t be able to appear in documentaries with their claims, as the LA will be able to knock-back any license request – though generally such interviews are voiced-over already. Much of this is in response to The Times campaign against the secret court system, that has encouraged more people to come forward with their recollections of judicial and/or local authority abuse.

That is one effect. It could also be used to veto any programme that shows the council in a bad light, or -more widely- any programme that bucks the progressive agenda. How many programmes feature children? I can’t find any figures, but I’d be willing to bet it’s quite high. Certainly any family-reality programme (Supernanny, Wife Swap, Underage and Pregnant etc.) and all of the soaps. Most children’s programing, lots of documentaries (especially those featuring mental health, alcoholism, drug addiction etc. in families). Most of these already serve the agenda but any few dissenting voices will disappear.

The Local ‘Authorities’ are usually used as the tip of the spear in any increment in the control state. They were used to enforce the smoking ban, they are in charge of child ‘protection’ and education indoctrination, CCTV/GATSO cameras, ‘litter wardens’ and ‘alcohol control officers’… the list goes on. They can be relied upon to maximise ‘mission creep’ and are usually completely unaccountable and infested with the Righteous. This is just another small step on a long road.