Univision: Trump appeasing Hispanics

The faithful will deny it’s true but Univision is claiming that Donald Trump, in a meeting with Hispanic leaders, is offering a deal to legalize “millions of undocumented immigrants.”

If true, Trump’s plan would stand in sharp contrast to his previous statements about immigrants during the campaign. During the primaries, the New York property tycoon promised to build a wall along the border with Mexico and to deport all undocumented immigrants.

The possible reversal over immigration policy by the Republican candidate would not be without precedent after Trump has shifted his position on a variety of issues during his campaign from banning Muslims to taxes, minimum wages and and abortion.

Polls show Trump has alienated many minority voters and Republican party strategists have urged him to tone down his rhetoric about immigrants, especially Hispanics who make up a growing share of registered voters – about 10% in November.”

Republican party strategists — I see their hand in this. I have not trusted the recent additions to Trump’s staff, particularly people like Newt Gingrich, about whom nothing more need be said, and Kellyanne Conway — who previously headed Ted Cruz’ SuperPac and was a big donor to his failed campaign. She has also favored legalizing illegals.

Kellyanne Conway, who was named Trump’s campaign manager Wednesday morning, co-authored a 2014 polling memo for the pro-immigration group FWD.us touting the benefits of a sweeping overhaul bill that would have created a 13-year pathway to citizenship for roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants.

The memo, which was signed by Conway and 15 other GOP pollsters, argued that “most Americans don’t believe deportation is a viable policy” and that there is an “overwhelming consensus” for “some kind of legalization” for people in the United States illegally. The pollsters made the case that there is “broad support” for the bill that Trump now strongly opposes but Hillary Clinton supports.

“Supporting this new immigration reform proposal should be good electoral politics for Republicans,” the memo said.

Still, if Trump is sufficiently his own man he would likely not be swayed by this coterie of Wormtongues he’s acquired.

It appears I’m one of very few people who find this new report unsettling; everybody else on the Internet seems to shrug this off as, (to use Limbaugh’s word when excusing some leftward move by George W. Bush), “strategery.” Bushbots used to excuse any sellout of ‘conservative principles’ by Bush as being just ‘W’ being shrewd and ‘gaming the system.’ Strategery, and you need strategery to win. But, as I used to waste a lot of time arguing with these Bushbots and party faithful, if you ‘win’ by sacrificing any ‘conservative’ principles you may have had, or by selling out your real base of support, what has the Party won? More importantly, what will we,  the People, have won? Trump may be elected but if he comes into office heavily indebted to blacks (who have ‘suffered the most’ as he said) and illegal immigrants, what will we have won?

Talk is cheap, and the minority groups who are on the receiving (and I emphasize receiving) end of the pandering know this. They will not be satisfied by sweet talk and courting; they will expect Trump to come across with the goods ultimately. And that will mean more tax dollars spent on ”outreach”, special programs, and constant attention for reassurance that they are still at the apex of the victims’ pyramid. Just as in the past, there is always the threat of rioting to keep their special status intact.

I have not yet given up on Trump; I will give him the benefit of the doubt, realizing that we, the Founders’ posterity, have nowhere else to go this election. We have no candidate that represents our interests; in fact we have no viable candidate who is not outright hostile to our interests. But let’s watch and see whether Trump himself confirms this story from Univision. I wonder if, having satisfied himself that he has people like me ‘in the bag’, and that we have nowhere to go, he will now turn to minorities and focus on them until November. As always, we are taken for granted.

‘Dixie’ banned at Ole Miss

‘Ole Miss’ has caved again.

The University of Mississippi’s marching band will no longer play any variation of the song “Dixie” – a tradition some seven decades old at football games and other sporting events.

The University’s Athletic Department confirmed to Mississippi Today on Friday that the song, which was the unofficial anthem of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, will no longer be played at athletic events.”

The Confederate Battle Flag gone, ‘Colonel Reb’, the school mascot/symbol gone, and now the song ‘Dixie.’ What next? What will be banned next? Because, I assure you, ‘they’, meaning the South-hating SJWs, and Southern-born ‘cucks’, plus Northern transplants who should have stayed in their home states where they needn’t be offended — plus the ever-aggrieved blacks, will not rest. They go from strength to strength because they are unopposed. Why are Mississippians, real Mississippians, so passive in letting this go unchallenged? Are there no people who simply want to defend freedom of expression as a principle, even if they don’t care about the South?

What will be next to fall?

The songs “Dixie,” “Dixie fanfare,” and a pregame arrangement containing themes of “Dixie” will no longer be played by the band, known as the The Pride of the South.”

The Pride of the South? How have they let that name stand all this time? The South is not supposed to have any pride, according to the heritage-destroyers and the rewriters of history. If there is any pride of the South, or pride in the South and what it represents, it must be PC-whipped out of the Southron people.  That seems to be the agenda. And it seems to be right on schedule.

The article notes that the Band Directors chose not to comment on this announcement. I don’t know who they are, but I would guess that they are probably not Southern-born or Southern-bred, just as with the Ole Miss Athletic Director, Ross Bjork. It seems that few Southron people are in positions of influence and authority so that outsiders now determine their future, people with little to no understanding of the Southron people and their unique history and heritage. And that is probably by design. The South is now occupied territory, since 1865.

My late uncle, a rather tough Marine, told of one time, back in the 1990s, when he was on the highway driving home and the song, I Sang Dixie by Dwight Yoakam played over his car radio. It was the first time he heard it, and he told of how he had to pull over until he could dry his eyes. The song is a tearjerker for those of us who understand what ‘Dixie’, the place and the song and the people, mean to us. I had the same reaction to the song when I first heard it, and it still affects me, even more so, considering that soon, singing “Dixie” will be ‘hate speech’. Probably even the name ‘Dixie’ will be forbidden, eventually.

Our forefathers are turning in their graves. That they fought so hard and so bravely, against such odds, only to have their heritage erased bit by bit and their descendants demoralized and alienated from them would be more than they could endure.

.

Sam Francis on globalism, and…

From The Social Pathologist, a very good quote from the late Sam Francis on the subject of globalism. I’ve long admired Sam Francis, and consider him one of the most lucid and sound thinkers on our side.

However, read the comment below the quote at Social Pathologist. The commenter ‘refutes’ Francis by an extensive quote from Mencius Moldbug, and the seeming gist of Moldbug’s words, quoted as gospel apparently, are that Puritans/”Brahmins” and ultimately Christians are the real ‘elites’, not those considered elites by most of us.

Really? Who are these ”Brahmins”? That word was traditionally used to refer to primarily Bostonians, old-stock Anglo-Saxons, usually ‘Mayflower descendants’ or at least the most prominent families in the Boston Social Register. Famous people like the Lowells, the Cabots, and related families.  Read this PBS piece on the ”Brahmins” and you get very much the same jaundiced view of them as the one advanced by Moldbug.

In my earlier days of blogging someone mentioned my blog in the same sentence with Moldbug’s Unqualified Reservations blog, somehow likening us. Some people criticized Moldbug’s tendency to verbosity, thus compared me to him. In any case, though I looked in on his blog I never read it habitually. Maybe it was his manner of expression that was a little opaque and hard to follow, but from reading others’ analyses of his work, I gathered that he had a very idiosyncratic view of the world which I found hard to relate to. For one thing, his constant references to ‘The Cathedral‘, a term which to me seems a very Christian reference, and it seems that ultimately he blamed Christianity, or ‘Puritanism’ in particular for all that has gone wrong in the West. Now of course there are all those influenced heavily by him who perpetuate this meme. Personally I object to the references to ‘The Cathedral’ and I think his idea that these shadowy ‘Brahmins’ are controlling the world behind the scenes is ridiculous.

Some people like this bizarre idea that there are all these Anglo-Saxon Mayflower descendants, all obscenely wealthy, who are somehow, somewhere, exerting all kinds of power. Who and where are these all-powerful Brahmins who have managed to survive the centuries? Some think they are still living in Boston, but have any of these people been to Boston lately? Most of the old stock Anglo-Saxon Puritan descendants (having lost their Christian faith and became Unitarians or agnostics) are moved to happier climes, having gone to the Midwest and the Far West long ago, ethnically cleansed by the immigrants who came in waves, starting before the War Between the States. My own ‘Puritan Yankee Brahmin’ great-grandfather came to the far West long ago, as did many cousins. So where are these elusive ‘Brahmins’ and ‘Puritans’?

It seems to me that for Moldbug, the Brahmins are invoked as a way of deflecting blame from the Jews, and that is their function for many people looking to redirect the criticism of Jews.

Moldbug, whose name is Curtis Yarvin, is Jewish by ancestry though probably an atheist or agnostic. But then one can be an ethnic and cultural Jew though one professes no belief in God.

Yarvin, I think, is a pied piper, and I find that a great many people quote his words as if he were an infallible source, the last word. And most oddly, these are often people who profess awareness of the Jewish influence in the anti-White, anti-nationalist tyrannies with which we have to deal today. I can name at least one other Jewish blogger who also has a loyal and almost reverential set of followers among Alt-right or ‘pro-White’ readers and bloggers on the internet.

This is one of those paradoxes which always keep me shaking my head. Is it not wise to treat such writers as at least potentially working an agenda which is against our interests? I don’t understand this uncritical embrace of those who probably have some anti-White, anti-Christian axe to grind.

Trump: Hillary is the ‘real bigot’?

Where have we heard this line of rhetoric before?

I realize Trump is not perfect, and this may not turn me against him, because the alternative is much, much worse. But is Trump just courting the elusive ‘African-American’ vote? Or is he trying to win back the Trump-phobic ‘cuckservative’ vote? Either possibility seems like a waste of time to me.

In any case, see the responses of the Free Republic faithful to this speech of Trumps: they roundly cheer it, and think it constitutes ‘throwing down’, and ‘his best speech ever!’ One comment says “Right on Mr. Trump! BlackVotesMatter!”

And that alone is enough to make me think the opposite. The FR crowd, for those who shun that forum, love to use that line about the Democrats ‘being the real racists’, considering it to be a potential coup-de-grace to the Democrat Party, if only blacks would see it the same way — which, of course, they don’t and won’t. To blacks, all Whites are ‘real racists’, even those who protest they aren’t. Especially those who protest they aren’t, and point the finger at other Whites.

From the speech:

“It is time for our society to address some honest and very difficult truths.

The Democratic Party has failed and betrayed the African-American community. Democratic crime policies, education policies, and economic policies have produced only more crime, more broken homes, and more poverty.”

Who writes these speeches? Trump seems to have some on his staff who are part of that FoxNews group of pundits who seem to be influencing him towards being more ‘inclusive’, reaching out to the very people who oppose him the most, and hate him.

How can Trump be a potential advocate for the majority population while trying to appeal  to minorities with endless grievances? One can’t serve two masters.

And bad as the Democrats are, it’s just a falsehood to say that Democrats are to blame for black dysfunction and crime; that attitude takes moral agency away from blacks, as if they are in fact blank slates who have been shaped completely by the Democrat Party, and exercise no free will at all.

I am sorry to see Trump recycling these pathetic memes of the Limbaugh/Fox News crowd.

Update: Byron York writes about the speech, in a piece entitled ‘Asking for black votes, a very different Donald Trump’.

Another note: a commenter at Free Republic says the speech was ‘partly written by Rudy Giuliani’, and York reports that Newt Gingrich approves highly of the message.

Conservatism and ideology

Where to begin?  This piece is in response to a lengthy discussion here, and as I can’t usually get a blog comment published on Blogger, and as a blog comment can’t cover the subject, I’ll say my piece here.

Recently I wrote a piece about the necessity of some countervailing force to the ‘progressives’ who are demolishing our country. Especially is this true in our decaying society wherein the Left has been careening out of control, unchecked, so that our society is unrecognizable from what it was even 20 years ago. If those who say that ‘conservatism’ per se is useless and must be destroyed offer no alternative to it as a preserving force in society, what will check the hell-bent-on-change ‘progressives’?

Firstly, the comments I linked above seem mostly to agree that conservatism is useless because it has ‘no ideology’, being based only on ‘feelz’. But is this true? Is it true that conservatism has no ideology? The paleocons (are there still any surviving?) would say conservatism has no ideology, because ideology is opposite from conservatism and vice-versa. I’ve never encountered an old-time conservative who said otherwise. It is only the neocon, present-day Republican faithful who always rattle on about “conservative eye-dee-ology“, insisting that it’s what new immigrants (and black Americans) must adopt to succeed. I’ve had my share of disputes with such typical Republican, neocon, pro-war ‘conservatives’ over this ‘conservative eye-dee-ology’ which is a sine-qua-non. In my experience it’s only those now labeled ‘cuckservatives’ who yammer about ‘conservative ideology‘ and its paramount importance. It is the Cruzbots and the Never Trumpers who are the ones who always go on about the ideology of conservatism. Cruz was their guy because he is a ‘strict Constitutionalist’, a devotee of the Ideology.

As they believe in the ‘proposition nation’ they have to believe in ideology; that’s after all what holds a ‘proposition nation’ together, however tenuously.

An ideology is needed where there is no natural, organic bond and consensus among a people.

By contrast, most paleocons (who, for the uninitated, were the conservatives who are most closely akin to the Alt-Right, being racially aware, noninterventionist, against open borders, and anti-free trade and globalism) disagree.

I’ve said that conservatism is an instinct — a gut instinct, nothing to do with feminine-type feelings, or ‘feelz’, but visceral and bred-in-the-bone. Certain peoples are more conservative by nature, just as some individuals. Some seek change for its own sake, seeming to crave novelty and the exotic, loving risk and danger, while some are innately averse to such things. I believe this because it comports with what I’ve observed in my years of living and working, not because a psychiatrist says it and invents pseudo-scientific labels for it. Needless to say, liberals are often risk-taking types with all the ‘dysfunctions’ that implies. Conservatives are people who prefer order and stability over thrills and unpredictability. And though there are exceptions there is still a general rule. And we as a people (even ”conservatives”) show evidence of the risk-taking, thrill-seeking temperament, compared to our forefathers. (Yes, they took risks and braved dangers beyond the endurance of today’s coddled thrill-seekers, but that’s not the same impulse.)

Conservatism is a temperament. But ideology? It’s a systematic set of beliefs codified by some person or persons, not an organic set of principles that grows amongst a  people based on shared innate tendencies. Some modern dictionaries give more liberal definitions, implying that an ideology is more of a spontaneously-arising group consensus.

The word ideologue, for most people, implies rigid beliefs, dogmatic and doctrinaire tendencies. Notice that leftists by whatever name had purges of their peers who are found guilty of wrong-think, violation of the Sacred Ideology which must not be questioned. ‘Correct’ ideology is a must with leftists. And lately we’ve seen ”conservatives” or cuckservatives doing this as Trump and his supporters have been ‘read out’ of the conservative ‘movement.’ Personally I hate that term ‘the movement’ because I associate it with the radical left. The Sixties left always referred to itself as The Movement.

So the conservatives being condemned in the discussion thread are really liberals or ‘neocons’ in conservative clothing, not people who would have been by any measure considered ‘conservative’ in previous eras. They simply subverted the Republican Party (and that was one of the stated ‘Goals of the Communists’ as reported by Cleon Skousen in his writings) and proceeded to destroy it from within and discredit the very label “conservative” by polluting it with their own un-conservative policies and, yes, “ideology.” The neocons are ideologues par excellence, as are their leftist brothers.

Part of the neocons/cuckservatives ideology is the idea that everybody everywhere is capable of ‘democracy’ and that if we only send our armies in and ‘give’ them democracy, they will be good Jeffersonians in no time. Another tenet is that blacks and all immigrants can be real Americans if they salute the flag, wave the Constitution (like Khizr Khan, that good American) and thus celebrate Conservative Eye-dee-ology.

Obviously, their “conservative ideology” shares the blank slate, magic dirt tenets with leftist-liberals.

One of the better conservative thinkers, Russell Kirk, was adamant that conservatism is not an ideology, though I see that the commenters on the VP thread don’t like Kirk for the most part, lumping him in with today’s  ‘cuckservatives’. But if you read Kirk, which I have, he was very opposed to multiculturalism, globalism and political correctness, and he was racially aware, though in the context of his time. I recommend reading his work if you haven’t already, though he must be read with an open mind, not a mind already made up against him.

Kirk, while not ‘perfect’, perhaps, in the eyes of today’s impatient Alt-Righters, could be seen as a forerunner of Neo-reaction. He was not a ‘neocon’ by most measures.

In the earlier years of this blog, we had some lively discussions among the then-regulars; hard to believe, I know, but true. Many were young, and there was kind of generalized clamor among some of them that ”we need a manifesto.” I disagreed with that sentiment. I find the clamor for an ”ideology of the Alt-Right” to be the same, and while it’s understandable to a degree, I think it’s unnecessary and wrong-headed. There would no doubt be many different opinions as to what would constitute a codified set of Alt-Right principles or beliefs. There would be squabbles, considering that the Alt-Right or Neo-reaction includes some very different groups, groups who do not play well together. There are so many divides, even among American Alt-righters, for example the pro-Confederate Southrons vs. many Northerners who still blame slavery on the South, or consider Southrons ‘traitors’ for seceding. Then factor in religion or lack thereof, the divisions based on sex, ethnic nationalists vs. WNs or pan-Europeanists, Identitarians, and so on. Could such disparate groups with so many inter-group grievances work together and agree on much of anything?

It has to boil down to making survival a priority; what is good for us at this point in history — this very crucial point.In essence, our gut instincts have to take over;  our natural, God-given affinities, not some set of abstract principles. People who put abstractions and disembodied human reason above gut, natural instincts are what I call ideologues.

People won’t naturally sacrifice for abstractions; will not defend abstractions to the last man. Ideas cannot unite people, not for long anyway. Our country worked as long as it did (and yes, it did work, for a good while) because it was founded by a people with a common origin, sharing common ancestors, and a common religion — paraphrasing John Jay.

The ‘Lancaster Plan’ — is it real?

At Morgoth’s Review, a commenter links to a piece describing the idea of something called the Lancaster Plan, ostensibly something put together by the British government in conjunction with Islamic leaders. The source of this information is this piece at The New English Review.

The writer describes a weekend party at a friend’s house, at which an acquaintance, apparently someone ‘in the know’, described how the government has a plan in place to avoid the kind of terrorism that has happened in France and other European locales.

“He stated quite plainly that the situation in Britain would not be allowed to get out of hand as had happened, in his humble opinion, on the continent. What was more, he asserted, the British government had a Plan to keep the Muslim situation in the U.K. under control, and had had such a Plan in place since it was drawn up under the Blair Labour government back in 2005, after the bombings in London, when it had been known as the Lancaster Plan, named, he explained, after John of Gaunt who, although never king himself, sired the line of English Kings that came after him, kings who kept England together and at the forefront of world developments.

[…]It was simple, he informed us. The Lancaster Plan contained several different provisions that could be brought into play to defuse the threat of Islamic violence in the U.K.

[…]He informed us, with no special tone in his voice, just in a matter-of-fact way, that the first two provisions of the Lancaster Plan had already been activated and were proving to be successful. Further provisions could be activated when necessary and in that way Muslim violence in Britain could be contained or minimised, or maybe even staved off indefinitely if the plan came to be implemented in its entirety.

[…]He carefully explained to us the two stages that he’d just mentioned. The first stage was, so he said, the careful use of legislation to make any criticism of Islam, or Muslims, almost impossible. Many in government, he stated, were a little upset that in order to do that they had also made it legally very difficult to criticise other faiths such as Christianity or Hinduism, but their concerns about this had dissipated over recent years as it had become obvious that the police and the judiciary simply treated any criticism of a faith other than Islam, or criticism of a believer other than a Muslim, as being far less serious than criticism of Islam itself or of Muslims. The careful positioning by many NGOs, and left-wing thinkers, of criticism of Islam and Muslims as racist had not been entirely co-incidental either, so he averred, but had been initiated and encouraged by government officials in furtherance of the first stage of the Lancaster Plan.”

The rest can be read at the link.

Morgoth himself expresses disbelief of the story. It’s true that some anonymous person at a party is the source of the information, and that is hardly enough for us to accept it uncritically. And it’s sensible to have some healthy skepticism in this age of disinformation. I am not familiar with the writer of the piece who relays this information to us, and the anonymous source could be a disinfo agent. It does happen that ‘our’ governments deliberately sow disinformation both to demoralize us and to keep us confused. Disinformation has many possible uses.

However, in this age of unprecedented levels of madness on the part of those supposedly ‘in charge’, it seems almost nothing is too bizarre to be true. Many of us still don’t accept that the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan is true, though we see enough evidence to make it believable. And this alleged Lancaster Plan sounds like the kind of collaboration and capitulation which we can see taking place in all Western countries.

So can we say categorically that it isn’t true?

We’ve all read the saying, “To learn who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.” There are a number of protected groups who are held to be immune to criticism, among them blacks, gays, and especially Jews. In fact, though, these groups are not equal in their immunity from criticism; for example people can and do criticize the first two groups without fearing arrest or prosecution, in most cases, but to question the Holocaust can bring arrest and/or prison time, if convicted, and has resulted in imprisonment in some European countries and Canada. But as of now, it is only the criticism of Islam that has led to people being arrested or questioned in some European countries, in the wake of the refugee onslaught and recent terror attacks. Social media like Twitter, to their great discredit, have become an arm of governments in going after people who mildly criticized Islam or the sainted ‘refugees.’

So why is it that Islam is suddenly more of a sacred cow than the other protected groups, even more protected by Western governments than blacks or Jews or gays?

Recently some of us have wondered aloud, in the real world, if in fact ‘our’ governments have in fact capitulated to Islam and agreed to some kind of dhimmi-like status and/or ‘jizya’ in exchange for being allowed to keep their outward power as some kind of puppet rulers or collaborationist regimes? Why else would ‘our’ leaders be so deferential and servile towards people who clearly see themselves as our enemies and who boast of one day conquering us and our lands?

I realize that some people on the right abhor neocons and counter-jihadists, both of whom they regard (maybe rightly) as serving Jewish interests. I personally got fed up with the neocon warmongering many years ago, and soon saw that the counterjihad is a dead-end, ultimately bound by its own version of PC.

However that does not mean we should blind ourselves to the reality of Islam, nor should we understimate the perfidy and machinations of the Western leadership.

‘Not what America is about’

From a New York Daily News article about an imam and his assistant being shot in Queens:

“That’s not what America is about,” said local resident Khairul Islam, 33.

You could read the above words (haven’t we heard those words a lot lately, by the way) as being defensive of the real America, as saying that America is in fact not a bigoted country where people are “targeted” just because of the color of their skin or their obvious Moslem appearance and clothing. And in fact the real America, not the ‘America’ of the lurid media coverage, is not a country in which “innocent” people are targeted, willy-nilly, for any reason. But then that real America no longer exists; I used to speak of it as ‘vanishing America’ but now it’s pretty much vanished, because the original population has been diminished and neutered. And if anybody is being ‘targeted’ is it majority America, not the professional ‘victims.’

But no minority or immigrant, especially those of the Religion of Taqqiya, would ever offer a defense of America as being a place where innocent people are not targeted. Now, the aforementioned groups only utter a phrase like ‘That’s not what America is about’ as a way of saying that THEY alone determine what America is about, even though they may have just landed here in this country or crossed the Rio Grande last night. Only minorities, especially immigrants, know what this country is about, and isn’t it coincidental that they tell us that America is ‘for immigrants’ and ‘for everybody’, and that we old-stock native-borns have no special status, because after all, this is a ”nation of immigrants”, built by immigrants (and slaves, according to newly-minted ‘history’). So Bangladeshis in Queens get to tell the rest of us what this country is about. And their America is definitely not a place where grateful immigrants exist.

Meanwhile, that rare creature, an ‘honest’ Moslem, tells us that Islam does intend to conquer Britain, and that Sharia law is coming. He’s emphatic and confident about it, and downright brazen.

And yet Moslems have the gall to play the victim all the time, and to point the finger at us and cry ‘Islamophobia.’ So much so that the tumblr teens have a meme going, ‘Justice for Muslims.’ Because the poor Moslems are so badly treated. Apparently a Moslem tumblr blogger complained of being treated as ‘not human’, so the infidel teens are expressing sympathy and support. The object of their concern speaks:

muslim victims 2016-08-13_054455

The idea that the ‘media is spewing out’ bad things about Moslems is laughable. The media do nothing but promote fawning, flattering images of Moslems or the ‘Muslim community’, from the local ‘news’ coverage to the national news outlets. Have the Moslems come to believe their own falsehoods? Maybe, like their liberal apologists and enablers, they do believe these lies.

One more ludicrous claim of theirs: in the story of the Queens imam being shot, the perpetrator is described as being ‘Hispanic’ in appearance, yet the Moslems interviewed blame it on Trump.  And the media are happy to run with that, and imply that it is White, Christian America at fault. Actually it would not be surprising if it was one of their own who committed the act, given the Islamic propensity for internecine conflict. What is the Middle East but a hotbed of murderous infighting between various factions and sects?  The passage in Genesis about Ishmael’s hand being against every man is all too true. Yet somehow the rest of us are to blame, and we are somehow meant to solve their insoluble problems, and give up our countries to them.

And that, truly, is not what America is about.

More generational warfare

A thread discussing millennial female Christians ends up (surprise, surprise) with more than a few commenters taking gratuitous shots at the evil boomers. Whatever would people do without boomers to blame?

And the millennials have more defenders on that thread than boomers.

One commenter’s words: (but I am sure he is just joking, you see…)

“It may be unfair to some boomers”

There is no such thing as being unfair to boomers. In fact, being ‘unfair’ to them is a very good way to be actually fair with them.

Too bad nooses have gone out of style, because in a just world, we’d need millions.

I don’t know, maybe I’ve been too subtle and circumspect.

Every. Single. Boomer. Should. Be. Burned. Alive.

Huh, I feel better already.

I’ve read too many comments expressing what seems to be genuine loathing of boomers for me to laugh it off as wry humor. A lot of real feelings are camouflaged in the form of bitter humor.

The anti-boomer contingent never seems to acknowledge facts such as:

The largest voting bloc by age group that did not vote for the present regime in the last two presidential elections was boomers.

The largest group of voters, by age group, that voted FOR the present regime in  those same elections were millennials, with each age cohort voting more conservative with age.

Boomers are more conservative on racial issues — which, by the way, are supposed to be more relevant to alt-righters than others — than each successive generation. The younger, the more liberal. Boomers and the remnant of the even older generations are much more likely to oppose intermarriage (miscegeny), with the Gen Xers and millennials ever more liberal with each generation.

 

1480-3

Boomers are more negative on immigration, and likely to be immigration restrictionists, than are the younger generations, all of them, from Gen X on down.

By the way, the Brexit supporters were heavily skewed towards the older generations, boomers and older. Once they die, if the powers-that-be can delay another vote on it, the referendum will surely fail. The ruling classes know this, hence their delay on implementing the exit from the EU pending a future re-vote. The British millennials were having their own boomer bash-fest after the Brexit vote. And yet most elder-bashing American alt-righters  incongruously favor Brexit, though it was boomers and the older age groups that made the yes vote possible.

The fact that exceptions exist does not nullify the rule. Come on, don’t alt-righters cite that fact whenever someone tries to argue that ‘Not All [Minorities] Are Like That’? Then don’t try to argue that because you know of a millennial or two who is ‘Alt-right’ that the generalities are false. That dog won’t hunt.

I know a couple of millennials who vote Republican but who are politically correct and especially liberal on racial matters (mixing and intermarriage is good! Immigration is fine as long as the immigrants work hard and don’t blow us up.)

As to my statements about statistics on voting patterns across generations, and about attitudes based on polls and surveys, I’ve posted those links here before, and they can be found by those open-minded and curious enough to look it up. So I should not have to do the homework myself by posting links again, though I did provide links again above.  But by all means, don’t let facts or data interfere with your bias.

This generational war stuff is counterproductive. Why alienate a group that is on your side far more than the younger ones? No doubt some will say I am keeping it going on my side — still everybody is entitled to a defense, and nobody else is stepping up to say anything, so I take it on myself to do so. But I would love to stop writing about this issue, and unless the anti-boomers are willing to call a truce I probably will write about it again, if only because facts need to be mentioned, not merely feelings, which is all the other side has to go on.

As far as the boomers go, their many critics should be popping the champagne corks as boomers are dying every day. Be happy; you are getting your wish to be free of them, though I suspect many critics have boomer parents.  Daddy issues, anyone? But no doubt your world will be much improved when that generation dies off altogether, as you will then be living in a much more ‘diverse’ (read: nonwhite) nation, with voters who are on the average far more left-wing once the boomers’ votes are subtracted. That world will no doubt be superior. Right?

Like it or not, the older generations (boomers and the few ‘Greatests’ and ‘Silent Generation’ members) are the only living link to America as it once was, the real America, the (possibly) dead and gone America. Older people should be valued if only as they are the last living witnesses of what once was good and great about this country. Once the people remaining are people who never lived in the ‘real America’, and know it only from biased history books and unreliable popular culture (movies and TV) then there is little chance of ever restoring the best of what America used to be.

I often regret that I didn’t sit down with my elders, my grandparents and great-aunts and uncles, to learn all that I could about the world they grew up in. When we are young we don’t value these things enough. My elders were repositories of so much knowledge and information that is gone now, with their passing.

For those who are Christians, there is the commandment to ‘honor your father and your mother’. Today’s Christians have the deplorable habit of interpreting each commandment in the most narrow and literal way possible, so that honoring one’s father and mother means only the two people who conceived and gave you life, not the prior generations, or our elders generally. In the past, this commandment was taken as implying a wider application. The Book of Proverbs also has a few things to say about honoring age. Our culture, besotted with Youth, does the opposite; glorifies teens and 20-somethings and devalues old folk. But go ahead and despise the older folk and blame them for all that you haven’t done to save our world. You too will be old and despised in your turn, given the attitudes of the younger ones. What goes around, comes around, or as the Gen Xers and millennials say, ‘Karma’ will  catch up with you.

Harvard Republican Club rejects Trump

I see that the Harvard Republican Club has refused to endorse Donald Trump. According to their own statement, this is the first time in 128 years that they have rejected the Republican nominee for the presidency.

The statement spells out their reasons for taking this unprecedented position.

Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans. The rhetoric he espouses –from racist slander to misogynistic taunts– is not consistent with our conservative principles, and his repeated mocking of the disabled and belittling of the sacrifices made by prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and Purple Heart recipients is not only bad politics, but absurdly cruel.”

There’s a lot of hyperventilating exaggeration here, all laced with political correctness or ‘virtue signalling’, if you prefer.

Our” values? “our” conservative principles? What universe do these self-important adolescents inhabit? Not mine, and not the same universe as all previous generations of Americans.

Some of the comments online about this Republican Club statement imply that the members of this Club are ‘elitists’, probably old-line WASPs, because everyone knows that is who goes to Hahvahd, right? Well, maybe not. Harvard, like just about every university in this corrupt society, courts diversity. They have many special fellowship and scholarship programs set up specifically for ‘diversity’ of one sort or another, probably everything from LGBTQ-whatever to immigrants, (especially illegal immigrants), for Womyn, for American Indians. I think the percentages of old-stock Americans, especially WASPs, at Harvard are dwindling all the time.

The statement by the Club is a collective one, with no spokesman or leader named or quoted. From a 2013 list of some members’ names it appears that it’s the usual ‘diverse’ and multicultural cast of characters, as is found on just about every campus in this country, thanks to mandatory diversity admissions. For example, a Jewish name, a Chinese name, a Hindu name, and a couple of American-sounding names that may or may not belong to White students. In other words, this statement is not coming from an all-White ‘elite’ club as some are insinuating.

Harvard is not what it used to be.  In fact, every American institution, even those going back to colonial days like Harvard, is not what it started out to be, nor even what it was 30 years (or less) in the past.

This ritual denunciation of Donald Trump is just what would be expected, considering the source. It is not an indication of anything except the callow opinions of indoctrinated millennials in a very left-wing institution.

The left’s ‘human shields’

For a while I didn’t care to read Ann Coulter’s commentaries; maybe I associated her with the other Fox News ‘pundits’. Needless to say I tuned out Fox News years ago, when it was more than obvious that they are not conservative or right-wing, much less pro-White, even implicitly.

But I think she makes a very good analogy in this piece about the Khan controversy.

Khizr Khan, the Muslim “Gold Star Father” who harangued Americans at the Democratic National Convention, with a mute, hijab-wearing wife at his side, is just another in a long string of human shields liberals send out to defend their heinous policies.

Human shields. Yes, that’s exactly the purpose they serve. Just as in the Moslem world they notoriously use children as human shields, counting on the European Christian tradition of chivalry to ensure that our side holds their fire. Surely nobody will criticize the Khans; after all their son ”died a hero”, supposedly shielding ‘his’ soldiers, our guys. Mr. and Mrs. Khan are ‘Gold Star Parents’ who are thus immune from any criticism, and anybody who dares question them or their agenda would automatically be branded as heartless and/or unpatriotic. And the people who are most susceptible to this kind of approach are pro-military Republicans.

To me it just seems as if the Khans are being used in much the same way as Cindy Sheehan, who apparently was funded to travel all over this country making a nuisance of herself because of her son’s death in the Iraq war. After Sheehan was no longer useful to the Democrats, it appeared they dropped her, because she was no longer all over the media.

The Khans, however, present a better image for the left to exploit; they are Moslem, they are immigrants, they are non-white, and they claim to be patriotic ‘Americans’, with Mr. Khan brandishing his pocket-size Constitution which he purportedly carries with him. But just look at the expression on his face in that famous shot of him and his silent wife at the podium. What anger; what contempt. These are not exactly sympathetic characters with their surly attitudes and their evident lack of adaptation to this country.

I am dismayed by the numbers of articles and blog comments by ‘conservatives’ who flatly state that the Khans’ son ‘was a hero’, and that the Khans, being Gold Star  parents should be honored. But being utterly honest, is everyone killed on active duty automatically a ‘hero’? It seems to me that we have so devalued that word by applying it too inclusively that we have essentially stripped it of its original meaning. It used to be reserved for people who showed extraordinary bravery in dire circumstances, or people who did selfless, even self-sacrificing things for the greater good, or to save innocent lives. From what I have read of the death of the Khans’ son, it is not at all  clear that this definition fits him.

Many Republicans objected when the young female soldier, Jessica Lynch, was made out to be a heroine (PC version: ‘hero’, because ‘heroine’ is a sexist term) by being ambushed and taken captive. She was raked over the coals by some who said she did not deserve to be called heroic — including raving lesbian leftie Rachel Maddow. I believe women should not be in combat, and that the co-ed military is disastrous for all involved, But Lynch did not make herself out to be a hero; the PC military apparently did so, probably to bolster the case for female ‘equality’ in the military. It may be that this Khan case is also likewise a result of the politically correct military promoting the idea of ‘patriotic Muslims’ fighting alongside us, etc.

I don’t know how effective this blatant propaganda effort has been among average voters; I would imagine that only the most zealous ideologues are buying it. I do hope that further information will come out about the Khans We already know he has influential associates, so he is not a poor struggling immigrant, and that his business is involved with bringing more Moslem immigrants to this country, and that he has a financial incentive to do so as well as an ethnocentric bias towards it. Not to mention that his religion advocates for Moslems immigrating en masse into infidel countries, and that his religion recommends lying as a tactic to advance Islam.

So the Khans are being exploited by the left, but let’s not make them out to be hapless victims thereby; they are also doing some exploiting of their own.