The ‘Galileo Gambit’

A former reader, ‘Flanders’, commenting on Savant’s blog, points out a logical fallacy called ‘The Galileo Gambit‘, which coincidentally ties in with my previous post.

In that post, expressing disagreement with the President’s sudden call for a large increase in legal immigration, I was inwardly pondering whether this change in direction was some kind of sudden decision or whether it was planned all along.

In posts during or just after the 2016 election I had questions as to whether Trump’s election was in fact intended to co-opt the dissident right all along.

I wondered the same about the election of G.W. Bush. Why? Because the left ramped up the insane anti-Bush rhetoric to previously unknown levels, even in the days of Nixon, when the left made Nixon out to be the biggest monster and villain in our history. It all seemed over-the-top and disconnected from reality. But then with the election of ‘W’ in 2000, along with the crazy antics of the left during the long election dispute, the left outdid themselves in histrionics and rabid rhetoric. But even that was mild compared to the 2016 election, when the millennials were all grieving and rending their garments about the ‘fear’ felt by their ‘Muslim and gay friends’  who feared for their lives — supposedly. I found this too absurd to be believed — but these young ‘snowflakes’ seemingly believed, silly as it seems. But did the Democrat party apparatchiks actually believe their own hysterical statements about Trump being ‘literally Hitler’? Or the rumors of roaming gangs of MAGA thugs attacking innocent people? Or was it a kind of calculated reverse psychology — a ‘Galileo Gambit’ plan?

So what is the Galileo Gambit fallacy? I admit I wasn’t familiar with that one:

“The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. Users of the fallacy are to be understood as being essentially “Galileo wannabes”. This logic is obviously flawed. For example, consider a horribly-oppressed ideology: Wahhabism. Western governments seek to persecute and censor Wahhabists at every opportunity. Does this mean that Wahhabism is correct?”

Obviously not; the fact that an idea or policy draws strong opposition or vilification — or to use the left’s favorite term, causes the proponent to be ‘demonized’ — does not necessarily prove that the idea is right or true, or that the proponent must be one of the good guys.

But we’ve all been conditioned to think that if the left opposes something, whatever they oppose must of necessity be true and sane and desirable — just because our foes are almost always found on the wrong side of every debate and dispute. They champion everything that is immoral, unnatural, destructive, and just deranged. (See their recent support of infanticide, as the most vivid example to date).

It’s normally safe to assume that the far left are likely to oppose anything and everything that’s good and wholesome and normal and true. But what if their excessive and exaggerated opposition to G.W. Bush, for example, was meant to induce the Republican party to champion and defend Bush — even when he was wrong on some issues, as he usually was? Things like the Iraq war, which many Republicans embraced all the more stubbornly because they thought Bush must be right if the left hated him so much. And it seems as if the Republicans stood by Bush and his open borders policy because they saw him as unfairly under attack by the scoundrels on the other side.

Suppose Donald Trump was the globalists’ preferred Republican opponent in the 2016 election, and the sudden rallying of the right to his cause was just the ‘briar patch’ that the Democrat globalists wanted to be thrown into. Whichever candidate won, the globalist, one-world cause would win. And yes, before anybody asks the rhetorical question ”would you rather have Hillary as President’? my response is no, I would not. But on the other hand, have we all been manipulated and ‘played’ by the ridiculous leftist attacks on Trump and on Trump voters?

The unrelenting attacks on the President elicited an automatic knee-jerk response from me, though I was ambivalent at best, harboring considerable doubts (expressed on this blog, if you remember) about whether Trump was the real thing. I had serious reservations, given his lavish praise of Hispanic immigrants as “wonderful, wonderful people” — even as he lamented Kate Steinle’s death at the hands of a many-times-deported Jose Zarate, one of those ‘wonderful, wonderful people.’ Was Trump channeling Jeb Bush, (remember Jeb’s ‘immigration is an act of love‘ drivel?) And after all the promises about a wall, why coddle the so-called ‘Dreamers’ and why invite millions more immigrants, even if they are ‘legal’?

Before the 2016 election many populists/dissident rightists held to the consensus that both parties were complicit in the destruction of legacy America; neither side was to be trusted, both parties, despite the fake ‘pro wrestling’ rhetoric were working towards the same ends, ultimately. I hate to return to that cynical assessment because I am not by nature a cynical person, but I am rethinking that.

I, at least, was probably fooled by the ‘Galileo Gambit’ fallacy.

Begging and choosing

True to form, the ‘migrants’ from Central America who are massing at our Southern “borders” are making the usual demands.

These people are at worst, invaders and thus by definition criminals, or at best, they are beggars and chancers, with an arrogance that doesn’t befit their status. When you are trying to force your way into someone’s home, you are in no moral position to issue ”demands” to those whose hospitality and wordly goods you crave.

This situation need never have developed, if only our folk — I mean, everyday people, not our so-called leaders — had not been too willing to look for the best in everyone, even those whose intentions are not good.

These too-trusting, too ‘nice’ people may not be the majority amongst White Americans, but they seem to typify the response of a lot of us towards Hispanic people in general. Think of it: our history records that we have for a long time had a mutually hostile relationship with many of our neighbors in Latin America, most especially Mexico. Yet we’ve stood by ineffectually as increasing numbers of Latin Americans have come here, legally or otherwise, ostensibly to ‘help’ us with picking crops or doing other such manual labor.

Since the reign of political correctness has been established, more and more Americans have been taught lies and feel-good ‘brotherhood’ platitudes while back in the realm of reality, Latin Americans continue to show animosity towards us, while many well-intentioned White Americans still believe in the ‘hard-working, family-oriented’ stereotype promoted by George W. Bush and his ilk. Due to this pollyannaish, inclusive tendency of many White Americans, intermarriage between Hispanics and Whites have become more common in recent years, most often between White men and Hispanic women. Our folk have become more accepting of this in part because of the relentless propaganda preaching ‘colorblindness’ and the usual ”all one race, the human race.”

With the huge influx of Latino immigrants, many of us have gradually become more complacent about it through sheer familiarity, even in places which until fairly recently had few to no Latinos resident there.

Exposure to ”diversity” does inure people to the presence of many different ethnicities, and thus our innate wariness of outsiders is weakened, and because people can find some trivial way in which outsiders are ‘really just like us’ under the skin, we have become much more tolerant, to the point of being complacent and jaded about being increasingly surrounded in our country.

There is a somewhat heightened sentiment lately against this perpetual influx of Latin Americans, but for many White Americans, the only objection they can muster up is that the immigrants are mostly illegal. Somehow many people can’t get the message that the problem is immigration per se, not ”legal vs. illegal.” If someone had told me, some 12 years ago when I first began blogging, that in 2018 so many White Americans would still not get it, and would still be harping on the ‘legal vs. illegal’ red herring, I would not have believed it. Why is it that so many Americans are still stuck on that point, repeating it ad nausaeum, like parrots? Media lies and propaganda are a large part of the reason, but maybe it’s something in Americans, whether in our natures or in our upbringing and culture, that predisposes us to be pushovers for ‘victims’ or underdogs, or to think that learning to speak English will erase any significant differences between us and Hispanics, or any other immigrant groups.

We see similar processes taking place throughout all European and European-descendant countries, not just our own.

If I say that we are too trusting, too nice, too eager to ‘get along’ with everyone, can it be innate in us, this behavior? Certainly our forefathers, even up until mid-20th century, were not so ‘welcoming’ and passive, so it can’t be a genetic thing.

Regardless of the cause of this enfeebling of our society, and our inability to envision simply ‘sending the migrants home’, we will have to recover our forefathers’ strength and their determination to put their folk and their land ahead of the supposed obligation to foreign peoples who brazenly demand we surrender our land and our children’s future. The moment of truth is now; do we submit to the demanding, hostile beggars at our borders or will we choose our own people, putting them and posterity first?

Transforming America

A certain political candidate several years ago spoke (ominously, in my opinion) about ‘fundamentally transforming America.” The audience, as I recall, cheered this phrase.

Any sane person should be afraid when someone offers to ‘fundamentally transform’ the world or society, especially when it’s to be an open-ended process, constant change, or what was it Chairman Mao said? “Perpetual revolution”? There’s no end to trying to ‘transform the world’; the people who want to engineer these changes are never happy or satisfied with their work; the revolution must go on. There’s still so much more ‘work that needs to be done.’

And the social engineers, as we know, are not always politicians.

Look in on Vox Day’s blog, here.  Read the excerpts from a Hollywood story conference which included Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Larry Kasdan.

The year was 1978, and the story being discussed was “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Spielberg et al discuss the idea that the character Indiana Jones and his ‘love interest’ in that movie had a relationship starting when the ex-lover was very much underage. Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan ‘negotiate’ over just how early this relationship started; the age of eleven is suggested by Lucas, (!) and eventually they settle on a compromise: fifteen is settled on. Sixteen or seventeen? “Not interesting anymore.”

Surely they knew they couldn’t get this kind of thing accepted by the mainstream movie audiences — yet — but these people take the long view; it may take decades of slowly pushing the boundaries back, but they do it relentlessly.

The metaphor of slowly boiling the frog, though overused now, is very appropriate here.

Most people would probably classify Spielberg, Lucas, and company as being purveyors of ”family” movies, of wholesome good old-fashioned entertainment. But as someone commenting on the Vox Day thread says, Spielberg was “pushing the envelope” with his ”wholesome” movies like ET, with the foul-mouthed kids in that film. I remember some parents being shocked by the crude talk from the children in the movie, but most were willing to let it go because the movie was “cute”. This is how we’ve gotten to where we are culturally, what with increasingly vile movies being accepted by mass audiences, and our culture reflects what the movies promote: children who are ‘worldly-wise’ at a very young age, and young adults who are very much jaded and experienced before they are out of their teens.

The older generations don’t escape blame; many who grew up in a more civilized society have gradually come to accept the corrupted world that we live in now, and made their peace with it. Few people are willing to reject the values of Hollywood and the entertainment/propaganda business; people love their pop culture and their distractions.

Recently in another blog post here I referred to the fascination many young people seem to have with ‘Pre-Code’ movies, that is, movies that were made in the early talkie days, before the Hays Office began to restrict the content of movies. The Pre-Code movie devotees never get enough of railing against the Hays Office and its namesake, Will Hays. They are, to the leftist post-modern movie fan, the equivalent of the hated Joe McCarthy of the political world. The Hays Office and the McCarthy ‘witch hunts’, so-called, are a favorite bete noire of the left.

The ‘Hays Code’ or the Motion Picture Production Code is often denounced as a heavy-handed, prudish censorship which infringed on people’s ”freedoms” and stifled artistic endeavors, and thwarted creativity. It does seem odd, if these criticisms were valid, that so many of Hollywood’s best efforts were movies made during the era of the Hays Code. It’s also strange that since the rules were first, loosened, then abandoned, movies have declined, becoming ever darker and more nihilistic as well as cruder and more profane.

For years I’ve been saying, when hearing of Hollywood’s latest over-hyped sleaze, ”how much worse can it get”? And I keep being surprised at how the movie moguls seem to outdo themselves in producing something worse, because that seems to be their mission: to drag society down to the gutter level at which the movie industry seems to operate. They are succeeding, and it seems to me that even the fact that movie attendance seems to be declining for some years does not discourage them. They are on a mission, and even shrinking profits don’t seem to daunt them.

The Hays Office and the Code, far from being villains as most movie fans seem to believe, served a good purpose for as long as it lasted. America — and the post-Christian West generally, was already in a moral crisis after World War I in particular. The ‘Roaring 20s’ are an example of how sexual morals became lax; drug and alcohol abuse and all the accompanying problems weakened us in many ways. Societies which are hedonistic and libertine are rarely, if ever, strong and powerful. Dissolute societies are always prey for invasion and conquest.

If not for the Hays Code, Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan would not have been having their discussion about how young the ‘love interest’ of Indiana Jones could have been — because by that time, had not the movie moguls been compelled to ‘clean up their act’, we would long since have had movies featuring “inter-generational love” or ”zoophilia” or whatever other euphemisms they’ve dreamed up for these various deviancies. The Hays Office was fighting a sort of rearguard action against the trends, which were already present in 1930s America. They at least bought us some time in which the worst tendencies of Hollywood were kept restrained to some extent, imperfectly. But that was better than nothing, better than just letting Hollywood and the rest of the ”entertainment” world run amok, as now, transforming our society at will, with our complicity.

What’s in a name?

I’m glad someone addressed this issue, though it seems to be a hopeless cause to change the politically correct terminology that dominates our language.

Jmsmith at The Orthosphere blog writes about the varying names given to followers of Islam, with ‘Muslim’ being the politically correct usage employed by the media, the educational establishment, the lefties — by everybody, in fact, left or right, except for a few ornery people who say ‘Mohammedan’ or ‘muzzie’ or some other less-than-reverential term.

A Mohammedan is not a Christian or Jew because he is: “one who accepts the proposition that an Arab named Mohammed or Ahmad, son of Abdallah, of the city of Mecca, in Central Arabia, who died in A.D. 632 is the main and indeed ultimate channel whereby the will of the Creator of the world has been revealed to mankind.”*

If you accede to calling this man a Moslem (i.e. Truly Religious), I believe that you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. If you accede to calling his religion Islam (i.e. True Religion), I believe you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. To draw this to its sharpest possible point, a Christian who accedes to using the words Moslem or Islam is at least flirting with apostasy.**

Well, then as a Christian I might be apostate because I have held to using ‘Moslem‘. However I have a different recollection as to which term was considered ‘offensive’ to Moslems, besides ‘Mohammedan,’, that is. I was not sure if my memory was accurate so after a little searching I came across this:

“According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,”Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word.” But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means”one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means”one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

[…]Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups.”

From what I recall, that pressure came from the militant ‘Black Muslim’ sect back in the late 1960s when the ‘establishment’ was leaning over backwards (as now) to placate minorities, especially militant blacks. I doubt that many people today are aware of the origins of that sect, and how outré their belief system was/is. To think that we automatically kowtowed to them on the issue of what we are “allowed” to call them or their faith is pretty shameful for us. It shows how ‘cucked’ we were, even back in the late 60s when all this nonsense began.

“But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP–the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World–published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut–is still The Moslem World.”

Interesting; I didn’t know anybody officially still used ‘Moslem’, apart from me and a few others. Incidentally a friend of mine began using ‘Moslem’ after hearing me use it only to be scolded by her leftist millennial offspring, who, of course, know everything since attending college (and a Christian college, at that).

I am not looking to be contentious here or to argue with Jmsmith; I am in agreement  that we should not simply give in to pressure from those of a religion which is contradicts with our own Christian beliefs, a group which is essentially at war with us, and has been since its inception. We should not accede automatically and go along with their terminology and definitions. In doing that we are being less than true to our Christian beliefs.

There are lots of terms for followers of Mohammed: Musulman, Mahometan, Moslem, Mohammedan. They served us well for many centuries. Why change just to placate those who are never going to be appeased by anything less than total submission? Because that is what Islam means: submission.

The ‘racism’ scare and other scares

There’s an interesting piece at TakiMag, called Skeered o’ the Racisms. The writer points out the way in which lefties/SJWs gin up a fear of this mysterious entity, ‘racism’, which is said to exist everywhere, at least everywhere White people (including White babies, according to Time magazine) exist.

And just in case there isn’t enough of this mysterious force everywhere, it has to be conjured, or hoaxed into existence, as the ‘demand for racism exceeds the supply‘ as I think Steve Sailer said. It seems Whitey is slacking off on the job, not committing the requisite number of ‘racist’ acts, so somebody’s got to do it.

Just an aside: there are a shocking number of politically correct commenters at TakiMag; are they ‘cuckservatives’ or SJWs? It’s getting hard to tell them apart these days.

But back to the need for a good ‘scare’ to motivate the Left and their mascots/pets: it’s ironic that the left is very fond of referring to legitimate threats as ‘scares’ or ‘witch hunts’. I read the IMDB website a lot because I watch many old movies, and maybe it’s masochistic on my part to read the reviews there but I do read them. It’s disturbing how very many commenters cannot watch an old movie without scrutinizing a film for the ‘racisms’ and all the other naughty ‘isms’ like ‘sexism’, as well as all the ‘phobias’ like homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia — have I left any of them out?  The IMDB commenters are also unhealthily obsessed with ‘pre-code’ films, which they prize very highly because, as one commenter said, it’s ”delightful” to find salaciousness and ‘corruption’ in old movies. Now, why this should evoke delight in a movie viewer is somewhat baffling to me, but I gather that it is because it confirms the lefty’s ‘faith’ that the popular image of the wholesome past is in fact false; that people were really hypocrites sinning it up behind closed doors, while putting up a false front of respectability. Human nature being what it is, certainly there were people who feigned innocence in public while being perverts, drunks, or druggies in private. But to say that ‘everyone’ was a liar and a hypocrite back then is just not true — still, it’s what the left believes. So they do love to see the pre-code movies in which we see drug usage (movies like ‘Three on a Match’) or other perversions (‘Wonderbar’).

Most of all, though, the left loves to uncover ‘racism’ in old movies, for example, a black character playing the role of a butler, maid, or janitor. And the SJWs are beside themselves with satisfaction if they spot an Oriental character (yes, I did say ‘Oriental’; it’s a perfectly good word) speaking pidgin English. One commenter on IMDB was shocked and troubled by the ‘‘degrading Chinese music‘ played in some movie with scenes of Chinese people or the Orient. I wasn’t aware that a musical score could be ‘degrading’ in and of itself. I actually found that complaint amusing.

Really, these obsessed lefties, these self-appointed advocates and ‘champions’ of their poor downtrodden minority clients/mascots, seem to need some evidence that their feared bogeyman, the spirit of ‘racism’, does exist now as then. It vindicates, for them at least, the enormous amounts of time and energy they devote to thinking and talking about it — and condemning it.

I think, personally, it’s a very appropriate use of the noun ‘scare‘ to describe their fixation with ‘racism’ as a scare. Interestingly, they almost always use the noun ‘scare’ to designate something they say is nonexistent: like the ‘Red scare’, as they call it, of the 1950s. There was no Communist threat in that era, so they say; it was all in the minds of the ‘far right’, people like Joe McCarthy and any number of others who warned of the presence of Communists in high places.  So it was just a ‘Red scare’, a mythical bogeyman created by the right.

They also favor the term ‘witch hunt’ in describing things like the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) hearings. Just as they say there were no real witches in Salem or elsewhere, they say there were no Communists, the Venona papers notwithstanding.

So it was all a witch hunt, an attempt to harass and punish perfectly innocent people, for their political views. If it was a real ‘witch hunt’ the hunters were pretty inept, because despite the much-hyped ‘blacklists’ and other such measures, the Communist cabal went from strength to strength and they have pretty much enacted all their stated goals from the 1940s-50s. So who was paranoid?

Actually now the shoe is on the other foot; the lefties, despite having the whip hand, and having the media fully in their service, claim that the ‘far right’ is a threat to them.

I think it’s fitting to deploy their own terminology and rhetoric against them; yes, call the racism thing a ‘racism scare‘, in the spirit of their ‘Red scare’ propaganda. Call the racist hunt a ‘witch hunt’ because that, in truth, is what it is. Except that unlike in the past, there are no ‘witches’ on the White right working evil voodoo against the army of ‘victims’ the left has in tow.

I don’t know if the left really believes in their own hysterical rhetoric; some are utterly cynical and habitual liars, who lie to themselves, but it may be that some actually believe in their increasingly bizarre view of the world, especially the past. In any case, the SJWs are the ones who imagine, or pretend to imagine, threats and evil intentions around every corner.

If we’re lucky, in some saner time we will be able to read in honest history books about the ‘hysterical racism scare‘ of this era.

‘National suicide’

Integrity of Home_safeguardOfNationalStability_vitalogy

The above was written in 1899, and the book which is the source of the quote has been subject to ridicule from the usual crowd in this cynical and “know-it-all” age. Nevertheless there is a lot of truth in that little quote. We can see it playing out now as the author predicted.

Our age has produced generations of people who think that our era symbolizes some kind of pinnacle of human knowledge and wisdom. Yet we are not wise enough to admit or even to see, in many cases, that today’s philosophy of life has brought a lot of misery and unhappiness, and may end in our disappearance as a people. Speaking for  myself, I don’t find the past worthy of derision; my grandparents and their generation were far wiser, though perhaps less ‘educated’ than today’s self-absorbed perpetual adolescents of all ages. It’s too bad we chose to abandon the rules and standards by which we lived in their day, which produced stability and a legacy they passed on to posterity. Is it too late to restore that?

 

‘A safety valve’

Francesco Guicciardini, the Italian historian and statesman of the early 16th century, said some things about the uses of ‘angry words’:

guicciardini - safety valve in words_result

It’s not an original thought on my part, obviously, but I’ve often wondered if this is one of the reasons why the powers-that-be ”allow” the degree of freedom of speech that we still retain. It can’t be because they respect our Constitutional rights or that they really want to give every opinion a chance to be heard. Obviously they would like to shut down free speech altogether if it is not in line with the official PC dogma.

It makes sense that letting dissidents and political out-groups vent their thoughts on the Internet, if not in the government-controlled newspapers and TV outlets, is a means of letting us blow off steam, and though this is a necessary thing sometimes, as few of us have chances to express our ideas openly without repercussions, it’s also a bad thing potentially, as it may serve as a substitute for some sort of action.

As much as I dislike the frequent taunts from certain people online accusing those who blog or comment of being mere ‘keyboard warriors’, and of ‘doing nothing’, there might be some truth in that for some people.

Another reason for “allowing” dissenters and so-called ‘thought criminals’ to express themselves online is that it allows TPTB to keep tabs on the state of the average citizen, to gauge how much resistance is out there to the agenda. After all, the powers-that-be have to get some idea of ‘how much work still needs to be done‘ as the left always puts it. They want to know how much more relentless propaganda and gas-lighting they still have to churn out to get the population in the properly passive and compliant state, or to more fully demoralize us (in both the old and the new sense of the word).

Some of us have been saying for years now that any day now, our freedom of speech, such as it is, will be taken away and we will no longer have any opportunity to present our case to the fence-sitting ‘normies’ or apoliticals out there. However it seems it would be more profitable for those in authority to let us go on venting so that they can keep tabs on the state of the people, and also be alerted to those out there who they deem a ‘danger’ — at least among the White citizenry; dangerous folk of other ethnicities and races are allowed free rein to be a public danger.

And then, as Guicciardini said all those centuries ago, the use of ‘harsh words’ by dissenting elements may take the edge off their righteous indignation and enable them to refrain from doing anything that poses a ‘threat’ to the agenda. Still, though it may to some extent be a way of keeping us subdued and passive, there may be a limit to its usefulness in that way.

It isn’t wise, ultimately, to believe that we are still ‘free’ because we can still speak relatively frankly on certain subjects. It may just be part of creating an illusion of freedom, an illusion that seems to suffice for many middle-of-the-road Americans. The appearance of freedom is good enough for them, even without the substance.

Who ‘runs’ America?

Who is in charge in our country? This is an important question for those who (like many of us) are appalled and horrified by the direction of our country. Who is to blame? To whom can we assign responsibility for the decisions that are being made, ostensibly in ‘our’ name?

Most of us who grew up in the old America, the America that was and is no more, were imbued with the idea that we, the people, were ‘in charge’; that elected officials were ‘working for us’, being paid by us. Most of us no longer believe that; how is it possible to believe that the American citizen has power in this country, when we’ve seen our elected officials, at the highest levels, ignoring our expressed will, and seemingly doing the bidding of other interests?

For some people, The Jews are the real power, albeit indirectly or covertly. Others (strangely) still identify some kind of mysterious WASP ‘elites’ as being in control. Some people refer to ‘New England Yankees’ as a powerful cabal, though there are few colonial-stock Yankees in New England anymore.

Lately a great number of people on the right subscribe to the idea that ‘Boomers’ are and have been in charge, and that they are therefore to blame for the situation we are in. This idea is a recent one, relatively speaking. I started blogging in 2006 and I don’t remember hearing this meme then. It’s only caught on in the last several years at most. Yet it’s become strongly ensconced in the minds of many on the right.

It would be interesting to trace this meme, to follow it back to its source. I posted a comment from another ethnonationalist blog which named a few bloggers (on the right) as the likely source, but who knows? Lacking any other explanation I might accept it; I know it has been reinforced greatly through constant repetition on certain blogs, though it’s everywhere now.

I’ve tried, without success, to argue via data (polls, survey results, etc.) to refute the idea that boomers are far-left and that they constitute some kind of powerful force. However I’ve found that approach to be a failure. People seem to be operating out of a visceral dislike rather than a rational antipathy toward their favorite villains. Facts don’t matter; data does not persuade people who don’t want to believe the data.

If boomers were a monolithically leftist group, the gut-level loathing would be understandable.

And even if the charges against them were true, do they ‘run’ America? If so it would be logical to assume that they must be firmly in control of Congress and other such institutions. But at no time does one age group or cohort have exclusive control of Congress. There is always a cross-section of age groups and different generations in seats of power. The 115th Congress, which is the one sitting now, has quite a few very old members, people like Rep. Conyers, who is 87 years old (and thus not a Boomer), or Reps. Young and Johnson, from Alaska and Texas respectively. I am sure there are other octogenarians in Congress; what about Dianne Feinstein, the oldest Senator, at 83? And how old is John McCain?

The youngest Senator, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, is 39. I think that would make him a late Gen-Xer, for whatever that’s worth. So there is a mix of ages and generations in Congress. More demographic data on Congress members is here; it’s of interest that more immigrants are now sitting in Congress, as well as record number of nonwhites and women.

And what of the Supreme Court? Aren’t the ubiquitous Boomers dominating that institution? I think most of us know that there are a couple of octogenarians (pre-Boomers) on the Supreme Court, and according to this article the average age at which they are projected to retire will be 83.

Where else can we look for Boomers? They surely dominate college faculties, don’t they? They are being accused of ‘holding onto’ their jobs past the age when they should be forced out to pasture.

But does anyone seriously profess to believe that one age group can exercise so much influence in the important spheres of life? Some ‘anti-anti-Semites’ have accused those who warn against Jewish influence of attributing near-superhuman powers to Jews. It seems there are just as many people who must think Boomers have superhuman powers to exercise so much control over our society.

Simply reading a history book would make it clear that the crisis that has beset all the Western, formerly White-majority countries has its roots far back. It did not originate with Boomers, or even the Silent Generation (many of whom participated in the 60s countercultural movement). It is too facile to accuse any one age group or generation of being solely — or even mostly — to blame. Were all the other generations asleep or completely inert and passive when the Boomers were supposedly doing the dirty work of destroying Western Civilization? Even millennials have for years had the right to vote and to make their voices heard, yet only now are we seeing a percentage of them taking to the streets to oppose the left. Likewise with Gen-X. What was the saying attributed to black militant Eldridge Cleaver? “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem”? Everybody who is of age has the ability to ‘get involved’ in some way when they see things going down a dangerous path; people of every generation have had their chance to stand up and be counted, to play some part. It’s easy to point the finger at somebody else, and demand ‘why didn’t you stop it?’ or to say ‘it’s all your fault’.

A certain female politician notoriously said ‘it takes a village’ to raise a child. And it takes more than a ‘village’ to destroy a nation, a people, a culture. There is more than enough blame to go around.

And just a reminder for those who note accusingly that the ‘Boomers’ aren’t out on the barricades in these recent skirmishes: Boomers are now elderly, with the oldest being septuagenarians. Actually in the 1990s there were still a good many Boomers who were actively taking part in rallies and protests in border states, where some were assaulted by immigrants or their supporters. I can think of two such cases involving older people being injured. Do the critics really think grandma or grandpa should be mixing it up with violent young immigrants and antifa types? That’s a job for the young and fit. And the opposition has no respect for the aged or those who are weaker — but then few people on either side do.

Some people openly wish harm to Boomers for their ‘sins’, but be patient; at seventy or so, people begin to die of natural causes, as we’ve seen with a few Boomer celebrities recently. Time is catching up with them as with all of us, and the Boomers will be gone soon enough, vacating the role of scapegoat for someone else. And how does this blame game change anything? It doesn’t. It divides us. It polarizes and paralyzes us. We need to regain a sense of common purpose to unify us. We should, for the greater good, be able to put differences aside.

The American Indians lost control of this continent because they were so lacking in unity; our colonist ancestors benefited from the divisions that kept the different tribes at each others’ throats. Somebody is benefiting from our divisions.

And it ain’t us.

 

 

“They” will not divide “us”

Just who are the ‘they‘ in this meme, and who are the ‘us‘ to which this meme alludes?

The ‘they’ who are supposedly out to divide ‘us’ are, presumably, hateful haters who don’t accept the multicultural ‘we’, the pretend unity that the lefties are invoking in the wake of the latest terror attacks.

I guess the ‘they‘ would be ethnonationalists, realists, anti-globalists, anybody who is not conforming to the official multicult dogma, anybody who dissents. People like me, obviously, and presumably people like those who may be reading this blog or others like it.

The enemy, according to the PC meme-makers is not Islam or any other foreign group; it is the citizenry of one’s own country who are not sufficiently submissive to the official party line dogma issued by the globalist overlords and their puppet-rulers in Western countries. Foreign enemies are not in fashion now; what does the Bible say in Matthew 10:36? A man’s enemies will be those of his own household? The left designates us, the dissidents and recalcitrant ‘old Americans’ as their enemy, while expressing solidarity with militant Islam, even as Islam carries out violence against us. Yet some of our folk can’t get it through their heads that we are the enemy to the powers-that-be and their leftist ‘useful idiots.’

In that sense, we are deeply divided already, within our own ‘household’. The divisions are political as well as ethnic, regional, class, religious, sex/gender, generational, and (last but far from least) racial.

We could hardly be more divided than we are.

The left and their globalist bedfellows know this, yet they have the gall to invoke this nonexistent ‘unity’ and to piously proclaim that ”They” will not divide ”us.”

There is no ‘us’ in this country that encompasses all of us, across all the boundaries that I mention above. The powers-that-be and their media stooges have made sure of that. Their constant divisive rhetoric, their ‘divide-and-rule’ memes have left their mark on our society. Sadly few people recognize that these divisions need not exist in the extreme form in which they’ve taken shape even in the last 10 or 15 years. I have to say, when I started blogging only 11 years ago, we were not nearly as riven with dissension and intra-racial animus as we are now.

The same can be said of other once-White countries, to a greater or lesser extent. This is a big part of why we are so vulnerable to what is happening to us now. A house divided against itself cannot stand. (Sadly that last sentence is often attributed to Lincoln when he was merely quoting Jesus Christ).

As far as poisonous memes go, I have to mention another one: this ridiculous idea that if we alter our lives in response to terrorism, if we show fear or even sensible prudence and caution, we are ‘giving in to the terrorists’, because taking precautions against terrorism means, bizarrely, that ”the terrorists will have won.”  So go right out and take chances and risks, as a way of defying those terrorists, whose aim is only to ‘make us change our way of life‘ because they ‘envy our freedoms.

It seems to me that their aim is to kill as many of us as they can and to terrorize us, to make us passive. Incidentally this latter seems to be the goal of the powers-that-be, and our governments. Maybe they are just using Islam and its intrinsic aggression and violence to keep us resigned and passive. False flags? Why bother? Just let the moslems do what comes naturally to them, and there’s no need for complicated false flag conspiracies and crisis actors, etc.

But to return to the original theme of this post, the main work of dividing the once-homogeneous societies was done years ago by the architects of multiculturalism. We tend to blame the leftist parties and politicians, people like Emmanuel Celler and Philip Hart, or Teddy Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. But the GOP has been complicit in this too.

The George W. Bush administration was the main promoter of the meme about how ‘the terrorists will have won’ unless we learn to be oblivious to the terror attacks going on around us.  That meme is seeing a lot of service these days, along with ‘they won’t divide us.’

At the Smash Cultural Marxism blog there’s a very good piece dealing with the ‘unity’ memes, pointing out that we are already divided thanks to ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism, via mass immigration. The time for the ‘they won’t divide us’ mantra would have been pre-1965 in America, before they ripped apart the fabric of our society with mass immigration and slow-motion ethnic cleansing/race replacement.

The time for Britain to have defiantly said ‘they won’t divide us’ would have been pre-1948, before the arrival of the Windrush. As Andrew Joyce points out in the article on the Windrush, the role of Jews was very prominent in that event, which should come as no surprise. So perhaps the roots of the multicultural divisiveness go back much further.

They have divided us already; the division is an accomplished fact. How we can walk things back and restore the cohesion and commonality that once existed is a complicated question.

We’ve already been divided, so pretending that there is some kind of imaginary unity between us and Islam — or us and Jews, or whoever else — is very hollow.

The defiant proclamation ‘they won’t divide us’ should be directed toward those who are responsible for shredding our society every which way, and that ‘they‘ is not nationalists or nativists.