Why universities are not healthy places for developing minds

Alternatively, this is why universities will soon be 100% state funded as when parents notice what they do to their children they will of course refuse to pay for them so the leftist controlled state will cover it and probably make it mandatory.

Ask yourselves if any of these kids had a party for the death of Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein. No? But they did for Margaret Thatcher. Which begs the question. What attributes of hers made her worthy of a celebration of her death yet no such show of glee for the passing of genuine tyrants who caused the deaths, suffering and enslavement to millions. Mr. Jong Il had people put into slave labour camps for three generations for minor infractions of the use of language. Thatcher did what exactly?

H/T EDL Buck

From RT:

 

For anyone interested in the real legacy of Margaret Thatcher and the revolution she created in England to actually enrich the working class and make Britain vibrant, please use this link to a bit torrent of an excellent documentary.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

10 Replies to “Why universities are not healthy places for developing minds”

  1. This is nothing new, but it’s obviously got worse. Leftist politics were rife (and fasionable) when I was at university. In fact it’s probably been the same since the 1960s. The difference was that in those days. most students grew out of it as there was always a balance with the other side. We’ve all heard the stories of the Left-wing 1960s hippies who twenty years later became businessmen or ‘bread heads’ as they would have been called.
    What people didn’t realise is that this was just the start of something more sinister. You can’t brainwash just one generation as they have their parents and grand-parents to keep them in line. It takes about three at least.
    Forty or fifty years after the flower-power era and with a little help from the former-Soviet socialists that infiltrated society after the collapse of communism, and you have a couple of generations of people that are ripe for the picking. Twenty years from now and society will have completely up-ended. Some claim that it has already.
    I seriously hope that there is a backlash, and there are signs that there is. The problem today though is that we live in a much faster and more technologically advanced age and a backlash may be a case of being ‘too little. too late’, especially with the rise of dangerous ideologies such as Islam. A lot of blood will be shed in the near future.
    I fear for future generations. These are exciting times to live in, but we have the benefit of being aware of our history, something that the children of the future probably won’t have.

  2. This is an internal strife. The other dictators did not directly affect them, so their deaths are distant and feels irrelevant to their lives. Thatcher was an influence in their land so naturally would evoke more emotion.

  3. “Forty or fifty years after the flower-power era and with a little help from the former-Soviet socialists that infiltrated society after the collapse of communism”

    I partially disagree with this statement. Maybe it is more of the wording or that it was not part of a paragraph on its’ own dealing with Soviet infiltration of universities.

    The Soviets have been in our universities since at least the 1930s. Sometimes they had more success and sometimes less. But they never left and they never stopped trying.

  4. Areun you are right.

    But Kim Jong Il affected these people. Money that went to prop up his oligarchy was not available to goods and services in the U.S.

    A peaceful unified Korea built more or less on the South Korean model would have benefited all mankind, thru innovation or less political strife leading to reduction in defense spending.

  5. For an interesting irony, and because it is a really well made documentary anyway, it is worth watching the Channel 4 documentary on Maggie Thatcher which exposes what the leftists actually are. Elitists who want to hold the working class hostage for their own benefits etc.

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/margaret-death-of-a-revolutionary/4od

    It is only available in England but I believe someone there is making a torrent of it. If so, I will post the link to it in the article when and if it becomes available. Again, it is really worth watching.

  6. No doubt there was some effect in the US and perhaps Europe from KJI but it is too abstract still too distant – unseen and thus un-felt.

  7. “Ask yourselves if any of these kids had a party for the death of Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein. No? But they did for Margaret Thatcher. ”

    This could be reverse unconscience racism occuring among white liberals. It works like that:

    Only white people can be very good, or very bad. Therefore these “little savages” such as Saddam or Kim Jong Il, or islamists for that matter, are too insignificant, unworthy of condemnation. These little people does not really matter (racist assumption 1). Only white people are strong enough to cause real problems and therefore are worthy of attention (racist assumption 2), and only white people (such as the white liberals), are good and capable enough to fix those terrible problems, that plague mostly their race and threaten the rest of the world (racist assumption 3).
    In that view, the white man is the center of the world. Only whites are bad enough to cause the real problems, and only other whites (white liberals) are good enough to fix those problems and stop the bad whites.

  8. Iron Maggie was one of the two people who lead the campaign that destroyed the Soviet Union, for this reason the left has to destroy her memory. Their campaign to attack all that is non Marxist is one of the reasons the entire west he headed for a massive civil war, I say civil war because the alternative is slavery.

  9. Maggie faced down the commies both home and abroad. That why commies hate her.