One out of many?

I happened to catch part of the ceremonies at West Point yesterday, with President Trump officiating.

I couldn’t help but notice the dominance of ”diversity.” It seemed to me, just scanning over the WP graduates that there were few Whites to be seen and that girls (I mean, women, or womyn, whatever) accounted for some of the slots obviously allotted to Whites, so that even fewer White males appeared.

Obviously they are continuing in the tradition of a predecessor:

A diverse Army gives us strength,” said General George Casey some years ago.

Remember the rest of his comments, and the context? In a memorial service for those killed at Fort Hood in Texas. In case anyone has forgotten, the shooter was Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan. Enough said.

Hassan’s presence surely ‘gave us strength’ according to Casey’s calculus.

Anyway the rest of his remarks:

“Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

General George Casey Jr.

West Point is following the Casey doctrine, evidently, as is the rest of our confused society. Diversity must be served, at all costs.

Then we have talk of ‘Unity’ being a must, because we can’t let “Them” divide us. A lot of people have bought this argument, that some outside forces (probably the ‘racist’ democrats, which many liberal Republicans devoutly believe) are sowing divisions — which would never exist if they weren’t being caused by some outside element — ‘Them’.

I realize many people alive now weren’t around to be aware that these things, these divisions and clashes and animosities have always been present, because different groups are — wait for it — different. Imagine that. People have somehow been persuaded, or persuaded themselves that we all once lived side-by-side in relative peace, while certain ethnic groups did not commit crimes. They all lived upstanding lives, got married (legally) and stayed married and raised families. We were all Americans, all melting-pot descendants of immigrants who became model citizens.

Believing this, people are expecting — should Q et al restore America after delivering all the malefactors to their just deserts — that we can all live in a state of Unity-in-Diversity, happily ever after. Because some things are just social constructs.

The Unity that is being touted is paradoxically Diversity, but it will, ideally, be a Diversity which does not divide; we will all just be flag-waving Americans. But the diversity that does not divide or set us against each other will not dissolve into some kind of fairyland Unity; it will corrode any possible unity.

I believe Donald Trump’s view of this imagined Unity is the same as that promoted by the Q movement; I’ve seen enough of their memes and of their channel which is on YouTube. Some of those who are regulars speak very harshly of anybody who they deem ‘racist’ (that is, too ethnocentric or ethnopatriotic); their programming is very heavy on the ‘rainbow’ view of America. The ‘Democrats Are the Real Racists’ meme, despite its uselessness as a political argument, is very much alive and well.

On the other hand, Vox Day in a recent post declared that Unity is not desirable; it is the problem. {I am paraphrasing}. If Unity somehow = Diversity, then he is certainly right. Of course Unity as envisioned by the pollyannas does imply that we have to create some artificial, non-organic unity, and that would be forced, just like things were forced back in 1957.

Unity has to be organic, from the ground up, not coerced and enforced by laws or government edicts, nor can it be forced by self-designated arbiters like the Antifa. It also should not be the result of peer-pressure from self-righteous liberals and lefties, or liberal Republicans who are little different from outright lefties now, with their bowing and genuflecting. Some do this physically, as we saw, but some do it in spirit, in words, and it’s just as bad.

Democratic censorship

Some years ago, in a book I read, the writer used the term ‘democratic censorship’ to describe a kind of totalitarian society in which the government does not have to carry out heavy-handed control over speech and the press, a la the old Soviet Union. In the ‘democratic” censorship method, the people themselves are indoctrinated so fully that they will police each other (and probably self-censor as well) so that peer pressure will discourage independent thought or heretical views. At the time I thought such a system would be very suited to Americans because it seems we Americans are very tuned into the consensus; most Americans don’t want to be the odd one out, the one who steps outside the bounds of what’s socially popular. We don’t want to feel excluded or outside the acceptable norms.

Now of course there are always some who don’t fit the majority pattern. There are always some who go to the other extreme — this is often true of the adolescent and the perpetually adolescent, who make a point of being nonconformist and rebellious in an attention-seeking way, or just to be a thorn in everyone’s side. And there are a few, I mean a real few, who simply seek out the truth, without caring if the majority agree or not. There’s a saying something along the lines of “It’s better to be in the right with two or three than to be wrong with the majority. “

Whatever the reason, most Americans prefer to fit in with their crowd, whoever that may be, and will avoid taking controversial stands. I suppose that’s why it seems we dissidents are seemingly outnumbered by the SJWs, the antis, and all their motley groups.

So it seems we have a kind of ‘democratic censorship’ in which we’ve learned like Pavlov’s dogs to salivate when the bell rings, in anticipation. I think that many we call ‘normies’ are people who try to ascertain which way the wind is blowing before they come down on one side or the other. Principles are optional for these people; they may change with the direction of the political/social winds. It was that way in the American revolution; most colonists were in the “big middle”, and something like a third were for the Revolution, with others being ‘anti’.

It happened that I just read an article on the TakiMag blog, wherein Taki writes about how the present war on free speech is being prosecuted not by government primarily but by private entities: the Big Media, including the Social Media goliaths. I agree with Taki substantially, and it does seem strange that the fictional dystopias written of by Orwell and Huxley were the work of all-powerful governments. Now here we are with private corporations telling us what we may say or write, and despite the warnings by Thomas Jefferson so long ago, we no longer have a free press.

We also seem to have a government, though, which acquiesces for the most part in the censorship and the dishonesty of the major media. We have a government which does not, or will not, carry out the primary duty of a national government: to protect from foreign invasions. So it seems as if our government as a whole is at best, taking a hands-off role regarding the obvious unconstitutional actions of private corporations.

But the strange role played by supposedly private entities in dictating to us what we can and cannot say or write is something I’d like to hear a libertarian address. I always wondered why libertarians clamored for everything to be privatized, to be handed over to the private sector, which is apparently incapable of becoming corrupted or compromised, unlike government. I’ve noticed for most of my adult life that private entities, banks, and other financial institutions, often oppress in ways of their own, just as much as governmental entities do. How, then, does placing more power in the hands of corporations (think of big media, big pharma, big medicine, big whatever) improve things for us, much less make us freer?

As for the censorship we now endure, in which many of us who blog live under the shadow of being de-platformed for our ideas and our thoughts, it seems that they really need not bother; the average citizen, especially those who’ve been thoroughly brain-laundered and gaslighted, will use peer pressure, shunning, and other such social means to discourage fellow citizens from coloring outside the lines and thinking outside the narrow bounds of “socially acceptable”, PC speech and thought. It seems, though, that there is a concentration of efforts on the part of several forces here.

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.