First, the good news

By now everyone knows the Virginia gun ban bill was defeated — for now. That’s good even though we know they won’t give up on their plans to try to destroy the Second Amendment, or the whole Bill of Rights. But for now it offers a chance to regroup.

Lately it’s impossible not to notice the frenzied state of the left, as they introduce one extreme and totalitarian measure after another. One gets defeated (or wins) and they rush to introduce some other deranged and desperate idea. With their hyperactive scattershot approach to ”change” (that is, destroying the America that was) they are bound to succeed here and there despite their demented behavior.

But the latest craziness they’ve presented is a proposal for mandatory vasectomies for all men over age 50. This is being proposed in Alabama, incidentally, by a female lawmaker, Rolanda Hollis.

Why men over 50? How many children do men over 50 father? Apparently more than the controlling left likes. I do notice that when I search on the subject, a lot of hits come up which assert that older fathers produce unhealthy children, and unhealthy children cost $$$ and we can’t have that — unless the over-50 dads and their large families are, say, families of Dreamers or anchor baby families. Then of course it would be discrimination to force vasectomies on the fathers and genocide to prevent the potential children to be born — wouldn’t it? I’d be so disillusioned if those news anchors and reporters on CNN would lie to me about that.

I don’t know what the left is thinking of with this idea, but then if I started to understand how they think, I might be as delusional as they are, so for now I am content to accept that they are irrational.

The only reason I can think of for preventing older men from reproducing is that they are more likely to be right-wing and traditional than the younger men — they are, in fact; there are statistics. They are more likely on average to be ”right-wing” and to vote ”the wrong way.” They might also be more likely to be religious, that is, Christian. The younger men seem less likely, statistically, to have fathered children, and what with the woman-vs.-man rift in our society, marriage and family are far rarer among the younger generations.

Also, demographically speaking, the over-50s age group is less likely to be ”diverse” enough to be desirable as fathers, at least by our current criteria.

Apparently Ms Hollis is trying to make a political point by this extreme measure, actually, but it seems a very backward way to do so. How does preventing men (especially older men) from fathering babies equate to preventing women from aborting their babies? I fail to get the point of it other than just another bit of leftist shock-politics to shake up the remaining normal members of the population. If only it would shake people out of their lethargy.

Where did it start?

While going through some files I saved from the Internet, I came across a blog comment left by a pseudonymous poster, referring to a certain controversial blogger. The date of the comment is not noted, but the comment was from at least a year ago.

The commenter says this controversial blogger is “at it again. Apparently it’s not the (((YKW))), it’s the boomers who are “to blame for all the ills of Western Civilisation.”

The comment says that “Paxman”, apparently British TV presenter Jeremy Paxman, had ‘pushed’ the narrative slamming the postwar “boomer” generation as the “most selfish generation”. Paxman even wrote a book on the subject and has gotten a lot of mileage from that trope. Others, seeing the money being made by such books, have piled on to make some of that filthy lucre for themselves .

Paxman is himself of the hated generation; is he just trying to fend off any attacks on himself by pointing the first finger at his own generation, signalling that he is not one of the evil, sociopathic boomers, but one of the good guys, by joining in the attack?

So Paxman was one of the first to kick off this generational war. But the blog commenter writing the comments that provoked this piece implies that Andrew Anglin was the one who has popularized the meme among the young male right, or the Alt-Right as it was, on the Internet. There’s always been talk that Anglin was a shill or a provocateur, and now there has been considerable discussion in some quarters of some new facts that have come to light, and it seems the consensus is that he is/was a shill or provocateur.
The over-the-top rhetoric and behavior seems to lend validity to that idea, and now his own words seem to confirm it.

Anglin and company aside, it seems this whole boomer-bashing meme was meant as a divide-and-conquer tactic, just as the commenter notes. He said that the meme became much more popular about 5 years ago, when various media (and Internet figures, too, by the way) people ‘began running with it.” And again, as I keep asking, who benefits? Who would benefit?

So here we are: mainstream [leftist] media people like Paxman, along with people who have popular and influential blogs, launched this meme. So its origins are suspect, as being ‘astroturfed’, sown by people with an agenda. And it seems to have been popularized, by lefty media personalities (aren’t they all leftist?) and Internet personalities with dubious backgrounds.

However it caught on like wildfire, despite its being ginned up by the dishonest media and other on the Internet with agendas.

But doesn’t its popularity and persistence show that it struck a nerve, or rang true for many young people, who are deeply in debt, usually student loan debt?

Not necessarily. Envy is unfortunately a tendency we fallen humans are prey to. I know people who incurred huge student loan debts in pursuing a fairly useless degree. I know some who went to 4 different colleges and spent about 10 consecutive years being professional students. I don’t think boomers or anyone else is responsible for that. But it’s nice to have a scapegoat and an excuse to be envious of the loathsome boomers and their contriving to be born in an easier and bettter time.

Scapegoats are a necessity for a lot of people in this present darkness. And a victimhood mentality, accompanied by the chip on the shoulder, is very popular these days, popularized by the left and their various clients.

No surprise, then, that the left and various (((shills))) on the faux right are involved in this particular smear campaign.

Another interesting fact: the baby-boom generation is the largest cohort of White people, by generation, in the West. When they are gone, following the older Silent Generation, the bashers will cheer their disappearance. But then the younger generations will be further isolated, and probably greatly outnumbered. Something to remember.

The rhetoric is very ugly at times, wishing death on ”boomers” and implying the need for ‘culling.’ It’s all out there in various sources if you doubt me.

The commenter I’ve alluded to above noted that the people who created this meme were ‘setting up an intergenerational conflict’ , setting our folk against each other.

It’s just one more sad chapter of our susceptibility to media influence — even among people who insist they do not trust the ‘lying media.’ They are being played by the media now, if they only realized it. But people don’t want to face it. The envy and resentment feel too good, for those who are caught up in it.

This is a topic I wish I didn’t have to address at all. But this division and the internal fractures are so self-destructive. And no one wants to talk about it except those who are keeping the conflict going. Everyone else is silent on it.

N.B.: I haven’t reproduced the comment I allude to because some blogs copyright even the comments, and readers are sometimes warned not to quote without full permisson from the blogg owner and the commenter. I am not sure from which blog the comment came, but it is genuine.