At long last…

Somebody in the blogging world has finally taken on the ‘generation warfare’ crowd, and pointed out the ugliness of it. That someone is Jim Goad at TakiMag. The piece is called ‘‘The Day of the Pillow”, and if you read it, the title describes the fate that the gen warfare crowd is wishing on the ”boomers”.

The kind of mindset described in the piece is evident in the comments on some of the horrifying news stories, of elderly people in nursing homes being brutalized, even killed — with some commenters saying that the abused old people richly deserve whatever humiliating or painful fate happens to them.

I’ve wondered, when I’ve read such coldhearted comments, how did our society get so depraved? A civilized society does not harbor these kinds of dehumanized (and dehumanizing) ideas and feelings.

The boomer trope, or whatever you might call it, has it that boomers are to blame for everything that is wrong (in the eyes of the ‘younger’ generations, at least). Boomers are fat, lazy, stupid, behind the times, greedy, materialistic, “old hippies”, ”boomercons”, “boomertards” and on and on.

It’s become almost impossible to read a ‘dissident” right blog without wading through the usual vitriol directed at ”boomers” and the few Silent Generation members that survive. I know of a few, such as a ninety-something man in my neighborhood who is still active, and who fought in the Korean War. That generation was tough as were the ‘Greatest generation’ I notice that those who push this generational war thing are resentful of those few WWII veterans who are still alive, saying that their “greatest’ tag is undeserved — because WWII should never have been fought, and the men who went to war when called should have refused and so on. It’s easy to make facile judgments like that from a distance; those were very different times and the people saw the world from a different perspective; today’s people try to apply our current standards, but those standards by which we judge today can’t be retroactively applied.

The age groups who peddle this line of resentful and bitter rhetoric feel that they’ve been cheated out of their share of material benefits; they say that their “boomertard” parents (or grandparents) spent all their inheritance.

But it’s worse than just resenting “boomers” for having an ‘easy time’

Goad describes, from the point of view of the ”boomers”, the present situation:

“…everyone places the blame squarely on your shoulders and thinks it would be an act of supreme righteousness if you and everyone else from your corrupt and wicked generation were to be murdered while you scream helplessly. Would any of this make you feel sympathetic toward the young, whether black or white? “

I’ve read the comments on a popular blog by a young man who asserted he was hoping to personally kill a ”boomer” if he could. He seemed in earnest; it was not a ‘joke’, and if it were it would not be funny. As far as I know, the blogger let his murderous comments stand, and didn’t object, or chide the commenter.

I tried to debate this subject on a Christian blog, where an anti-boomer piece was published, and found that even the ‘Christian’ blogger considered murderous sentiments to be perfectly justified and understandable. Now this began to be disturbing when even Christians join in this kind of thing and find no reason to condemn it or disagree even mildly with it.

Whenever I’ve written about this subject I get little response and I’ve wondered if I was the only one who found this generational ‘warfare’ and ‘boomerphobia’ to be troubling; when it comes to wishing that our own folk might die in a painful or degrading way — aren’t we more civilized than that? Evidently not, as most people aren’t at all troubled by the idea of it, judging by the resounding silence in the face of all this.

When I was out and about today I noticed a middle-aged couple, evidently Chinese, with an old man in a wheelchair, a family member. They appeared attentive and respectful towards him, whereas it seems we just want the unsightly old folks put out of sight and out of mind, left to the ‘tender mercies’ of the kind of ‘caregivers’ described in Jim Goad’s piece.

One blog I read even said that abandoning one’s old parents or grandparents shouldn’t be off the table. I was stunned at that, especially as this was on a ”Christian” blog.

That made me think of an incident that made national news back in the mid-1980s or so: an old man, in a wheelchair, was found abandoned at a racetrack. He apparently had dementia, and someone just dumped him at the racetrack with no identifying papers. Most people thought it was appalling and unthinkable. It seems the younger people think otherwise. Maybe abandoned old people will become a common sight as people decide that grandpa is useless and should be dealt with, as some people deal with unwanted pets: abandon them miles away and voila, out of sight, out of mind. Somebody else’s problem.

If that’s the kind of people we’ve have become, bereft of any kindred feeling, any pietas, as Cambria Will Not Yield says, then we don’t have much of a future. As atomized individuals, are we focused only on self and material things, with no sense of kindred loyalty, not even to the people who gave us life and brought us up: parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles? No man is an island. A people is made up of all ages, babies to elders, not just age 20s-to-40s as some would wish.

And when those ”boomers” die, to loud cheers from those who are happily anticipating their decease, those cheers may, ironically, herald our dying as a people. A people is made up of an unbroken chain of generations: our family across the centuries. All are part of us just as our contemporary blood kin are.

Personally, I wonder if this whole ‘hate your elders’ thing was not a psy-ops thing, another way to divide Whites, who then misdirect their righteous anger at each other, at their own parents and grandparents. Then to add more to the toxic mix, there is the male vs. female divide: feminists and their counterparts among the men’s rights activists. Not to mention, the substantial number of Millennials seem to have an aversion to babies and small children. I’ve encountered this; lots of younger women think babies are bothersome and unpleasant. They prefer cats or dogs. Or, as one young lady said, she wanted to spend her life on “self-care.” Is this a recipe for ensuring our future as a people, a united folk?

Kudos to Jim Goad for writing about this troubling subject; I still wonder why so many people have been silent about it , while it’s become so widespread. I don’t see how it can be ignored.

This just goes to show…

This story, unfortunately just one of many such stories out of the UK, is a reminder that ‘legality’ is not the be-all and the end-all, as so many ”conservatives” think.

Remember, the vast majority of the assailants are likely in the UK legally.

Yet the irrational emphasis by many people on ‘legal’ vs. illegal. What will it ever take to dislodge this nonsense from Americans’ minds? Or is it a lost cause?

Brouhaha over Trump and the Kurds

I don’t have a Twitter account, but I gather, from a post at the blog ‘Where the Strongest Evidence Leads’ that there has been something of a Twitter storm about Trump’s letter to Erdogan in Turkey. It seems that letter got the left stirred up, and probably in faux-hysterics about it. I haven’t read the letter, but I know his stance on the Kurds for some reason got the left’s drawers in an uproar. Their sometime ‘pacifist’ principles seem to appear and disappear depending on the party of the President who is in office at the time. But somehow they seem to think that Trump is throwing the poor lambs to the wolves.

It’s all theater, really, on the part of the left, and should be ignored if possible, but there are some important questions here. For one: are all immigrants just helpless and downtrodden? Or: is it always our place to be Daddy to everyone, and be responsible for them? On the one hand, progressives always complain that we are the world’s policeman, yet they want us to be the world’s servant or sugar daddy. Which is it? Are we ‘meddling’ when we ride to the rescue or are we being taken advantage of?

From the various discussions I’ve read here and there it seems there is the ususal propaganda about the Kurds, with them being portrayed, predictably, as merely another downtrodden and oppressed immigrant group. And it was a given, from the beginning, that there would be the now-expected ginning-up of sympathy for them and pressure to bring them en masse to this country and other Western countries.

I was stunned, a while back, to learn that Nashville, Tennessee has a large Kurdish colony, the largest ‘community’ of the Kurds outside the Middle East. Will Nashville, that iconic Southern city, home of the Grand Ole Opry, ever be the same place once the world is invited in permanently? Obviously that’s the plan. And it isn’t just Nashville. The Kurds have colonies — excuse me; a ”diaspora” in various Western countries.

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) the population of Kurds in the United Kingdom was over 50,000 in 2002, and though there is apparently no count kept of them as a distinct population now, that figure of 50,000 surely is much larger today, as the data was from 17 years ago. I heard that there was a sizeable protest in London by members of the Kurdish community, regarding Trump’s decision. London seems to be the home of most of the Kurds in the U.K. Well, diversity is London’s strength, isn’t it? It’s our strength, too, so we’re told.

I know the left have been wringing their hands because they fear a ‘genocide’ of the Kurds, but as much of their population is in ‘exile’ in various Western countries, I don’t think there is much likelihood of a genocide. And the leftist pretend to think Trump is abandoning the Kurds to their ‘fate’, showing his hard-heartedness or Kurdophobia (is that a word yet? It probably will be soon.) The Wikipedia info on the Kurds in the UK says that they are victims of ‘discrimination’ and suprisingly, mentions the fact of violence within their ‘community.’ There is a link at the Where the Strongest Evidence Leads blog, where there are lots of stories of violence within the ‘community.’ Usually those things are swept under the rug; those things don’t fit the ”narrative”. Among the ‘dysfunction’ reports: honor killings, drugs, human trafficking, etc.

Most Americans , it appears, are being conditioned to believe that only Moslems are hostile to us, and that anyone else will fit in to our societies just fine. That seems to be the prevailing assumption.

I think it’s wise to be aware of the fact that, as the linked blog piece mentions, “Kurds are not our allies…” It would have been good if people had learned that about the Hmong, another group who came here because they had ‘helped’ us in Southeast Asia, and somehow there is this unwritten law that ‘helping’ us militarily means we owe them forever and that they automatically come to America, presumably getting a green card and permanent status here. There are some people in Wisconsin whose lives were ended prematurely, thanks to our rewarding our Hmong ‘allies’ by adopting them; after all, ‘they helped us’.

It may sound cynical to Americans used to smarmy platitudes about immigrants, but sometimes is it not just possible that they ‘ally’ with us not out of altruism towards us, but because they have interests of their own, and ulterior motives, rather than our well-being at heart? Americans are such babes-in-the-wood sometimes. I suppose we can thank the propaganda machine for that, at least in part.

America has become an aggregate of various colonies by dozens (if not more) of other ethnicities and nationalities, and we are the colonized.

As to the Kurds, personally I don’t think we have to coddle or defend them in particular; it seems they are far from a timid, helpless group of people. Now if Trump would only get serious about our borders; Without borders we have no country, just as the English have no country of their own anymore and the Scandinavian countries likewise. And much of the rest of former Christendom. And yet everybody’s country but our own needs protection.

New link added

I just discovered, through a link someone posted elsewhere, a blog called Circa 1865. I wasn’t aware of it; maybe some of you know it. There are a number of articles on history, especially about the South, and the War Between the States. It looks like there’s a lot to delve into there, and it is well-written. It was a serendipitous find. I hope those of you who are interested in history, especially that of the era of the WBTS, will take a look at Circa I865..

People’s Party of Canada vs. multicult

Maxime Bernier, candidate for the People’s Party of Canada, is proposing a new policy regarding the increasing ‘diversity’ of Canada. Sometime ago I seem to remember that the Canadian government was sending out a call for ‘more diversity’, that is, more immigrants ‘of color’.

So why the need for rethinking the policy on increasing immigration, specifically, requesting immigrants unlike the founding — and once dominant — ethnic group?

David Grant at the Council of European Canadians blog, writes about this.

Speaking strictly for myself, I don’t know much about Canadian politics, but one thing that jumps out at me, as an American, is that Bernier’s ‘new’ ideas are not exactly new; those same ideas have been foisted on Americans, to replace our early beginnings as a nation made up mostly of people of British Isles descent, as well as some Northern and Western Europeans. As more and more disparate peoples were entering our country, and we soon had a polyglot population as increasingly exotic peoples immigrated here, it was gradually taught in schools that our nation was a set of propositions.

And this is the track on which Mr. Bernier would put Canada. Canada, at least officially, prides itself on its ‘diversity’ and its many cultures.

Bernier, it seems, wants to make Canada a proposition nation, in which people are Canadian by virtue of accepting a set of beliefs and ‘values.’

David Grant rightly points out that language, ethnicity, and history are ignored in Bernier’s plan:

Already he has shot himself in the foot. If Canada was just based off a sense of belonging and common values than why did the English and the French have to fight a war for the land? How will Maxime Bernier explain the distinct Quebecois identity that has been trying to tear away from Canada almost from inception? In these things Maxime’s belief makes it impossible to objectively understand Canada’s history. “

Bernier apparently repeats the line that we’ve so often heard from our politicians in the U.S.: the statement that Canada has ”always been diverse.” This is the official dogma in our country and in most Western countries. Both in Canada and in the U.S. it is false; both Canada and the U.S. had homogeneous populations early on, with the greatest percentage being of British descent — English as well as Scots and Irish. Just as this country was not ‘diverse’ according to the PC definition (meaning mostly POC’s). But this mantra ‘we were always diverse’ is a glaring bit of gaslighting, to condition people to accept the changes in their homeland(s).

It appears Mr. Bernier’s list of ‘values’ that should be core values of Canada include the usual: ‘freedom’ (in a vague general sense), freedom of religion, equality between the sexes, democracy, tolerance, pluralism, etc. Read the whole list at the link.

The question of what makes a nation is always very relevant these days. The comments below the article are worth reading; despite the official dogma about these subjects, the comments show that there are people in Canada who are not easily fooled, and they take issue with ithe status quo regarding, as Trudeau says, ‘what makes a Canadian.’

I believe that most thinking people in Western countries see through the offical rhetoric and propaganda, but even if Bernier’s new policy were to be implemented, I don’t see it making much difference; multiculturalism and multilingualism will prevail unless someone is finally able to gain influence and freedom to offer real changes inot imposed from the top down, but from the ground up.

Civic nationalism, as a substitute for natural ethnonationalism based on shared descent, religion, culture, and language, has always been a poor replacement.

‘Concerned with only one subject…’

The second paragraph, below, is a quote from one of the many writings of Alice A. Bailey, an English-born woman who, in the early 20th century, was part of a growing esoteric belief system, based mostly on the occultist writings of Helena Blavatsky, usually known as ‘Madam Blavatsky:

“The new world order must meet the immediate need and not be an attempt to satisfy some distant, idealistic vision. The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis and to a humanity which is badly shattered by the experience. The new world order must lay the foundation for a future world order which will be possible only after a time of recovery, of reconstruction, and of rebuilding.

In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organize any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation.

The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis…

We are concerned with only one subject, the ushering in of the new world order.”

It all sounds familiar — it sounds as though it’s all going according to plan. Notice that she repeats the phrase about the ‘NWO’ being ‘‘appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis”. This idea turns up often in writings by globalists when discussing the future. ‘Ordo ab chao‘, is the phrase.

The existence of writings like this from decades ago (the quoted words were written c. 1940) reminds us that these ideas have been around for some time, not a new development, not a product of the ‘Sixties.’ But the ideas are a part of the ‘New Age’ movement which many people think of as only another faddish syncretistic religious system, when in fact it is very political, working with the U.N. and other such organizations; I’d be surprised if the organization associated with Bailey, the Lucis Trust, counts many of today’s politicians and officials as members, though they may avoid publicizing that fact.

How has it all changed so much?

VDare has a piece by Harri Honkanen in which he writes about the apparent worrying situation in Denmark as immigration becomes more of a problem. The aggravating factor is accelerating mass immigration from the the Middle East and other disparate cultures.

As Honkanen points out in the article, there were some hopeful trends in Denmark, hinting that they might just be showing some common sense and a smidgen of healthy self-preservation instinct. This article, typical of many written a few months ago, praises her commitment to ‘cutting carbon emissions’ and the usual causes, but called her a ‘hard-liner’ on immigration; this raised the hopes of some on the right.

But those were false hopes, it seems. Mrs. Frederiksen, the Prime Minister, is singing the now-familiar refrains, the same tune that’s so popular among all the Western leadership.

It seems undeniable that female politicians and ‘leaders’ are softer when it comes to immigration or any ‘social justice’ issue. Maybe it’s the maternal instinct kicking in. Mrs Frederiksen is something of an anomaly among European female leaders in that she is not childless. She has two children so we can’t rationalize her political stance as being “maternal” towards the downtrodden at the expense of her own constituents and countrymen.

So why are all the Western countries seemingly moving leftward in recent years? It isn’t all due to the accession of a number of female leaders recently. When this subject is discussed, few people ever mention the factor of the ‘changing of the guard’ generationally. It seems to me that people overlook — or do they evade? — the part played by this factor.

People often say that recent elections have been affected by the increasing numbers of immigrants. No doubt that does play a part. But it’s generally been true that immigrants, according to polls and surveys, have less interest in voting and political action, outside ethnic activism.

But a bigger factor, it could well be, that as the older generations die then the remaining generations are much more left-leaning in their politics, even more so with the youngest new voters. And many of the youngest voters have very strong feelings about their politics.

I noticed some years back that the Silent Generation members, and ‘Greatest Generation’ people who used to be on the Internet were slowly disappearing. The result was the loss of many well-educated and articulate people, people with lots of life-experience. The discussions on the Internet, with the older people gone, became less well-informed, less civil and gentlemanly, more rancorous and given to use of foul language and name-calling.

I miss some of those individuals I used to ”see” around the Internet — and those in real life too; we won’t see their likes again.

The loss of those people means, politically, that there is less support for right-wing or even right-leaning policies. And, just as important if not more so, the culture has become so degraded and corrupt that the oldest generations could scarcely have imagined the shocking headlines we are seeing today, with no change toward sanity in sight.

I know someone will inevitably insist that those older generations were ‘dumber’ than today’s people, which is not supported by any data that I’ve seen, even allowing for some cognitive slowing-down in older age. It’s not even supported by simple observation. Those older people,our grandparents and even our parents, were better-educated; schools were better, and people were not as addicted to mind-numbing TV. Porn was not mainstream then; it was not everywhere
as it is now. The propaganda machine was not running 24/7 back then; people were better able to think for themselves. And they did, more so than today.

Personally I miss the older generations. I’ve always said the people make the place, well, the people make the era, too. The kinds of people who make up the population produce a society that is good, bad, or indifferent, according to the aggregate of individual character.

But as they say, ”you can’t turn the clock back’ so I expect we won’t have such a society ever again; we can only try to salvage what’s left of the one that was left to us. Whether that statement implies hope or lack thereof is up to us.

Changes to the look of the blog

I don’t know if any of you noticed that the blog may have gone through a few different looks over the last few hours, as I’ve again changed the visuals of the blog. The theme I was using had interfered with the blog links’ displaying correctly, so I’ve been trying to fix that, and the legibility of the blog, what with the different colors. I’ve been working at this for hours now, so I hope it is finally displaying as it should, and that it’s readable.

O’Rourke on the 2nd Amendment

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is now openly speaking against Second Amendment rights of citizens. I suspect he hasn’t had a change of heart, but has always held these views; the left has seldom upheld the ideas inherent in the Second Amendment. He basically says that it’s useless, and implicitly wrong, even theoretically, to consider opposing a tyrannical regime; after all, you have no chance of prevailing, even though you may be in the right, so don’t even think of defending yourself, your family, or your rights.

(By the way, O’Rourke’s name is Robert, so why again do we call him ‘Beto’? Is this not what the ”woke” left call ‘cultural appropriation’? His name is Robert, so why is he not called Bob, or in more appropriate Texas fashion, ‘Bobby’? Is he not a born Texan? He has no discernible Texan or Southern accent, but then that’s typical of his generation (since judging people by generation is somehow the ”done thing”, then let’s label him too; he’s a Gen X-er). And he is also one of those deracinated, cosmopolitan types, hence the affected ‘Beto’ nickname; I guess that explains it. He wants to show he is ‘down’ with the diversity thing; no ‘White-bread’ Texan or Southron, he.

In times past, someone like him would never have been elected; the Democrat Party. which dominated all of the South until what, the 1980s, would never have nominated him. Even the Democrat Party did not present such far-left candidates back in the time of the Solid South.

But the way in which he brushes aside any consideration of the Second Amendment, which the Founding Fathers thought crucial to preserving the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is just astounding, but then it’s typical of today’s left, who no longer pretend to honor our Founding principles.

Yes, I know it’s the thing now for even the right to deride the Founding Fathers, flippantly declaring that they didn’t know what they were doing, and that ‘muh Constitution’ is worthless, echoing G.W. Bush who reportedly said ‘it’s just a G–D—-d piece of paper‘ — but with what would you replace it? Of course no rights exist if we no longer believe in them, and dismiss the writers of our Constitution as clueless blunderers who should have somehow magically divined the ways in which future politicians would deliberately twist and warp the words and intentions of the Founders, or just blatantly ignore or defy the rights delineated in our founding documents. How could they have anticipated the developments which led to our present dire predicament? Could they have anticipated a world in which literally millions of people from the ‘have-not’ countries could somehow find the means (cheap air travel, money given by NGOs, etc.) to come en masse to our country?

And critics usually forget that our system of government was explicitly intended for a ”moral and God-fearing people’, and it was not suited to any other. Little wonder that it’s fallen to pieces; the more we forsook our traditions and became disconnected from our roots, including our religious roots, the more this country fell prey to subversion and decay. We can’t blame the Founding Fathers, who could hardly envision today’s world, nor can even the Boomers be blamed — sorry, Boomer-phobics. I won’t even blame Gen-Xers, except for the likes of ”Beto” Robert O’Rourke, though I will fault him for either his ignorance of or disregard for our inherent right to defend ourselves. It appears he thinks we should just cower in our houses if bad guys are breaking in, and give in to their demands.

Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.” – Aristotle

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone’s Commentaries)

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” — Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason

Children suing countries over climate issue

How does that work? How can under-age children sue countries over the climate controversy? I read that Greta Thunberg and 15 other children are suing the countries which are supposedly obstructing the progress of the effort to ‘fix’ climate change.

Emmanuel Macron spoke about his country being sued, and he was oddly noncommittal about this situation, not exactly enthusiastic, but still he emphasized that he and France are not opposing this effort. He did, though, called Greta and her ‘children’s crusade’ against nature ‘very radical’ and possibly antagonistic towards some of the nations being sued.

It seems surprising that Macron would say this, given his own leftist and globalist politics. But still it’s odder for children (or more accurately, teen-agers like Greta) to be traveling the world, being made the face of a movement like this, at such a young age. Let’s be honest: these young people are not children; they are being called that in order to make them more sympathetic. Children, it’s said, are innocent (though few are that, these days) and they are supposedly naive and trusting, and ‘honest’ in the same guileless way that only the very young can be. But how old is this Greta? I believe she is 16, nearly 17. That’s not a child, though Greta looks strangely childlike for her age, as though she may have a growth problem; she looks more like 11 or 12, and it isn’t just her short stature. But her short stature and childlike looks probably garner more sympathy from adults.

This looks like exploitation, cashing in on the youth and vulnerability of those who are being made the public face of this movement.

Any sympathy or protective instinct the movement has stirred up in parents or other adults may be counteracted by the angry, contorted face and words of little Greta, berating the adults, the guilty ones:

You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us I say we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now, is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming whether you like it or not.

This is pretty harsh and dictatorial language coming from what appears to be a young, pigtailed girl. Whose words is she reading? Or does anyone believe she writes her own speeches? Who is backing this whole sideshow?

Since when do young, callow, inexperienced, and overemotional young people get to dictate to adults? Children can be useful to political movements; some unprincipled people have used children as human shields. In this case, it’s more like manipulation and an effort at manipulating the public.

But these young people have themselves been manipulated by the ”educational” establishment which has conditioned them to believe what the orthodox establishment tells them, and has taught them that only one legitimate viewpoint exists, and that is the political establishment’s.

Power is no longer vested in the citizenry, though in our country the Founding Fathers insisted that the will of the majority was always to be respected. Of course Greta’s country, and I suspect the countries of many of these other activist ‘children’ do not accept the same principles, and at the moment it appears as if our own government is following some other law than the traditions and laws of our forefathers. But as of now, the United ‘Nations’ (funny, a globalist organization referring to ‘nations’, which they want to abolish) is apparently the highest authority. Will we have the third world dictating to us, via their organization, the UN? We are decidedly outnumbered in that organization, and yet we seem to be making obeisance to them. Will Greta and her teen-age ‘sages’ be laying down the law to us? Are they grooming those children to be our future leaders?

An internet commenter the other day quoted this passage from the Bible, which had also sprung into my own mind:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3:12