During World War II, there was a great debate among the Allies about the use of bombing raids against German cities. Collateral damage was the concern. The Germans built their munitions plants near population centers. There were those in the high command who said that if the Allies used aerial bombardment against these facilities, then they would be no better than the Germans. It would be much better to maintain their principles and lose than win and be judged as morally equal or even similar as the Germans.
Of course, that never happened. There was some debate about the morality of certain tactics, but only in so far as they would result in retaliation. That was the lesson of the Great War. The use of poison gas, for example, just resulted in the use of gas by the other side. As Greg Cochran pointed out, the Soviets may have resorted to germ warfare against the Germans, but fear of retaliation certainly shaped their thinking. If they used biological agents, it was out of desperation and covered up after the fact.
The point here is that in war, the first priority, the overriding priority, is winning. You do that first and worry about morality later. Principles are the things the winners create after they have secured victory. Principles are the way in which the winners consolidate their gains after victory in a war. Imagine if the Civil War had gone the other way and the South had won. Would anyone today tremble at the accusation of racism? Obviously not, because the victors would have had no reason to make racism a mortal sin.
The obsession with principle has always been the central defect of what the kids now call “Boomer Conservatism.” The BoomerCons accept, without argument, the principles and moral framework of the Left and then they try to out-righteous the other side in a pointless game of virtue signalling. It is the basis of the DR3 meme. Even if you are able to “prove” that the “Democrats are the real racists,” all you have done is prove they are right and that racism is the worst thing ever. Even if you win, you end up losing.
And yes, I know, not all Boomers think like this and many younger people fall into the same trap. Lots of young people like the Rolling Stones and The Who, but it is still Boomer music. The cultural upheavals going on today are due to the cultural upheavals that went on yesterday, when the Boomers tossed over the culture they inherited and created the prevailing orthodoxy of today. All of us now live in Boomer Land, which means we live in the moral structure created by the Boomer generation.
Now, the folks with the tricorn hats and “heritage not hate” signs can be forgiven for not seeing the folly of their tactics. They came of age when the general consensus said that the goal is a color blind society. If the bad honkies would just open up their hearts to the black man, all the race stuff would melt away. It was all nonsense, but a whole generation was raised on it and now they struggle to let it go. For most Boomers, egalitarianism is their heritage, so it is understandable that they cling to it.
Of course, the libertarian boomers have turned their love of principle into a ready excuse for not getting into a serious fight with the Left. You see it in this post on the American Conservative.
This month, three conservative protesters rushed onto a New York City theatre stage—and briefly into the national spotlight—enraged by the mock-execution of a character dressed to look like Trump. As a New Yorker fond of civilization I was alarmed at this barbaric behavior because this is how cultures unravel.
Well, that’s how culture wars work. Each side tries to impose their cultural preferences on the other. If you are in opposition to the prevailing culture then what you seek, by definition, is an unraveling of the culture. That’s how you win. Otherwise, you confine yourself to tactics that will never work. For guys like Todd Seavey, principle is a coffin they think will give them comfort as the Left lowers them into the grave.
Again, the Boomer generation can be forgiven for clinging to their principles even if it means defeat. They came into an America that was the colossus, standing astride the world as the defender of freedom and the exponent of economic prosperity. The principles they inherited were cooked up by people who conquered the world. America in the 50’s and 60’s was a society that was sure it had things figured out. If you were ten years old in the early 60’s, truth, justice and the American way made perfect sense.
The last fifty years, however, have proven to be a cultural disaster for America, one that will have to be addressed by the coming generations. In order for that to happen, a counter culture must form that is willing to be called unprincipled as they rush the stage or shout down the people with the megaphones. What ponytails and recreational drugs were for the Boomers, fashy haircuts and race realism will be for the next generations. The young who are rebelling are rebelling against those vaunted principles the Boomers cherish.
The only way a counter culture gets any traction is if it is indifferent, or even hostile, to the prevailing morality. There are two types of principles a people live by. There are those that precede their demise and those they create after they triumph. The people desperately clinging to their principles, lecturing those willing to do what it takes to win, will be buried with those principles. The winners, meanwhile, will be busy crafting a new morality. That’s the lesson of history. The people with a future get to write the past.
Speaking of “fashy haircuts”, Richard Spencer seems to disagree with you on “Free Speech is good” grounds, and Ben Shapiro is on Spencer’s side here. The stage-rushing girl feels that Spencer’s against her because she’s a Jewess. I discovered all this at Bloody Shovel (Spandrell) — Spandrell thinks that the stage-rushers are self-promoting “Alt Lite” psychopaths — where I commented that Zman, “a good guy”, disagrees with Spandrell + Shapiro + Spandrell on this issue.
As difficult as it may seem, several of us here watched the advancing tide of the Boomy Babers – with increasing horror – from the other side.
I was born, to a recently deceased Army vet, in the waning days of WWII – and therefore by definition NOT a Baby Boomer. It was apparent to me by the late ’50s that there was something deeply wrong and disturbing about the crowd only a few years younger than me. By the ’60s it became a thing of nightmares; why would anybody wish to be only a part of a multicelled organism? And who could possibly listen to that deafening crap?
More than a heritage, it seemed merely a function of the air that I breathed that to be an American meant learning to define yourself as a free individual. The Boomers gave all that up and skipped off happily, hand-in-hand, to the latest rock “music” experience.
At 72, and despite arthritis, I’m still youthful and commonly mistaken for someone ten years younger. The downside of that has been to be assumed a Baby Boomer for the last 40 or 50 years, which does not amuse me. If younger normals are impatient and annoyed sufficiently to tear the current “culture” down, then more power to ’em.
Like da yoot of every age, we were pushing on the door. We were shocked and exhilarated at the same time to find out that it was actually open because the GGen elite had pulled back the bolts of duty, custom and standards. Had the door even resisted, much less held, as we early Boomers half expected, things could have been very different.
I often wonder how much of the success of the 60’s counterculture revolution was due to the fact that the music was actually very good.
I think that the music was very good because solid folk/gospel source material was being developed by extremely intelligent people (Jagger, Iggy Pop); people got further and further from the source material (the connection’s been entirely severed now) and the pop-stars got stupider and stupider. I watch Youtube Let’s Play videos and commentaries with my kid sometimes, and I think that if people like Jagger, Iggy Pop, Bowie, Johnny Rotten were 22 today this is what they’d be doing — making Youtube videos.
@ Garr – YouTube is simply a revised version of MTV with easier access. To your point, if bands from the 80’s had to rely on YouTube, we’d probably never know about them.
Karl, I don’t mean music videos. I mean videos about computer games and movies and the science of games and movies and that kind of thing (stuff my kid watches). There’s this whole huge genre of Youtube videos called “Let’s Play” with hundreds of thousands of subscribers; these Youtubers are very bright and remind me of people like Mick Jagger and Johnny Rotten. (Basically you watch them play computer games while they make funny comments on what they’re doing. It sounds stupid but this is what all the kids who would have been going to see the Beatles in 1965 are into now.)
’60s musicians learned to take the musical heritage and fill their mostly derivative work with musical “hooks”. Accomplished jazz and big band musicians before them also employed lots of hooks in their music to popularize their work. Before the listening audience became a bit overwhelmed and immunized against musical hooks, the rock songs became anthems and part of the familiar. IMO that is why current popular music doesn’t get much traction versus the 30 to 50 year old work. The ear prefers the familiar. (If you are looking for an extreme example of musical “hooks”, listen to what Jimi Hendrix did with the Star Spangled Banner. He took the tune of an old drinking song and threw hooks all over it.)
“If the bad honkies would just open up their hearts to the black man, all the race stuff would melt away. It was all nonsense, but a whole generation was raised on it and now they struggle to let it go.”
You keep insisting on this, but the overwhelming evidence is that this crap started with “The Greatest Generation”. And here is Shelby Foote (born 1917) opining about how this wonderful relationship with blacks was suppressed for such a long period of time. I especially direct your attention to the remarks in the last half of the interview…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBFMFTxyIx0
Busy today so no time for a well-thought out comment so I will make it quick.
The electoral map of 2016 is an absolute wash of Red when compared to the electoral map of 2008–at all levels of government. We are winning, particularly at the local and state levels where culture issues really drive elections and where governments can’t print money in unlimited quantities to buy votes. I am optimistic in the short term, i.e., 8-12 years.
After 2028 Democrats will hold the Presidency on a permanent basis and will govern through Executive Order to drive their agenda. The only way around this is to evict California from the Union.
OT: Trump trav el ban re-instated at the SCOTUS. Nice pick up for The Don. Looks like he will get his second SCOTUS pick this year, too. The left is going to shit themselves blues, when they see all the court seats filled up without a fight (or a compromise) — thanks to Dirty Harry Reid. Thanks asshole, couldn’t have done it without you!
Still not tired of all the winning. Not even close.
A bit of time on Google has led me to believe that the English language does not have an adequate antonym for the word disappointment. So I’ll just say that so far Gorsuch has been the opposite of a disappointment. For example he joined Thomas and Alito in saying the entire injunction should be lifted re: travel ban.
Great posting, Z.
What disturbs me most isn’t the loony left rage in once-sane magazines and websites (e.g., New Yorker) — although that can be hard to take sometimes. The thing that really blows my fuse is when “respectable” conservatives argue from the same premises as their supposed opponents.
Take this cartoon from The Burning Platform (a few items up from the republication of “Boomer Cons”:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/06/26/youre-a-racist-2/
Pure cuckservatism: “hit” back by accusing Democrats of being racists in 1860. Yeah, that’s telling ’em. An argument over who gets to wear the cloak of white guilt.
Same thing with comments about how blacks have come close to (or succeeded in) turning central cities into no-go areas because, hey, the Democrats have kept them on the welfare treadmill instead of encouraging them to start hair-cutting businesses.
It’s not only boomers who fall into this trap, but they set the template and clandestine politically correctniks have followed it ever since.
Not sure why the usual attack on libertarians here. The sole thing that distinguishes libertarians from others is subscription to the Non-Aggression Principle. Libertarians may counter aggression, and guess what? There is nothing out there but aggression. Self defense is already permitted to libertarians. In that respect they are no different from white nationalists or alt-right.
Where things might get sticky is later, assuming the right has won. Will they then seek to impose their own view of ideal government on libertarians? If some form of Panarchy is not put in place, we might find libertarians subsequently opposing alt-right too. People don’t like imposition – particularly people who have just got finished throwing off the previous tyranny.
One has to wonder about the utility of antagonizing potential allies…
Libertarians are potential allies in the same way that a boulder sitting on top of a mountain with every route of descent blocked is potential energy, and just as worthless.
The guy who said “let’s you and him fight” was probably a libertarian.
Not that there is anything wrong with that….
I am a Libertarian I will not initiate violence. If however, you fuck with me and mine I will fuck you up,
do you like to wear black leather chaps? it sounds like you do…
”The BoomerCons accept, without argument, the principles and moral framework of the Left and then they try to out-righteous the other side in a pointless game of virtue signalling.”
Perfect example, just listen to Sean Hannity’s radio show. Daily you’ll hear ”Muslims don’t permit women to drive! They throw gays off of buildings!”. Considering what else they’re doing such as driving vehicles into crowds, slicing and stabbing any ‘infidels’ they can get ahold of and shooting up concerts, women driving and ”gay rights” are rather minor issues don’tcha think?
Has anyone seen Karl Horst and Herzog lately? Their perspective could be really interesting here. Last I saw, Karl was out west in the USA… I wonder if Frau Merkel got him at the border.
I’m not sure where Doug went either. But I agree , Karl and Herzog are also missed.
@ Severian – Frau Horst and I had a wonderful time in the US. We put 3,500 miles on the rental car wandering through the back roads of the Midwest you call “fly-over country”. On one occasion my wife and I were actually the very first Germans they had ever met!
As to this post, we really don’t have an equivalent to your baby boomers in regards to how our cultural norms have been affected. Generally speaking, Germany, and most of Europe, tend to be about 15-20 years behind the US on these issues. The US and the UK probably have more in common given the shifts in your respective cultures from the 60’s music, labor relations (unions), the drug culture scene, and of course immigration.
West Germany never really went through anything quite as dramatic and of course the East was dealing with it’s own issues under the old DDR until the wall came down. Keep in mind no one in Germany was protesting against being drafted to Viet-Nam or getting shot at the universities for doing so. We had no equivalent to Woodstock, the Black-Panthers or Elvis (thank God!) 🙂
Personally, I think Churchill should have been put up for war crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg trials; the deaths of 135,000 civilians in Dresden alone was completely unjustified. The results speak for themselves; despite the allied bombings of our major cities and the untold hundreds of thousands that perished, Germany still managed to developed aircraft and weapon systems which were superior to anything the allies had with the introduction of the Me-262 and the V-2 programs. Both of which continued until the very last days of the war.
America is unique in that unlike Japan, Germany (and most of Europe) have always been very homogenized people – we all pretty much look the same respectful to our country of origin. Historically, religion has divided Europe more than race with the exception of the Jews who for reasons unknown, seem to be universally abused everywhere and by everyone.
America has always been a melting pot, Germany and Europe not so much. In France and the UK this only changed in the last century after they lost their colonies and their colonial subjects decided to head to the “mother country” for a better life.
Karl! Glad to see you made it home ok, and great to hear you had a good time in America. As always, thanks for the German perspective.
Danke und bitteschön! 🙂
ever hear of the V3?
I did learn one valuable lesson from the Boomers (my folks’ generation): It is right and natural for kids to do the opposite of what their elders tell them.
This is why, if you see me out on the streets, you’ll say “hey, there goes Professor Goodfeels. Wonder what xhyr pronouns are today?” I’m relying on the natural rebelliousness of kids to do my sabotage for me. I will be so, so sad when my kids all turn out to be shitlords. 😉
Boomer cons are the character who betrays the rebels and begs to be plugged back in to the matrix
Principles DO matter in war, becasue its possible to win the war, and lose the peace, if one is callous about the body count and damage done.
There are major flaws both justifying and the effectiveness of indiscriminate bombing in WW2. When Hitler decided to bomb London, it was a huge mistake. It saved the British RAF airfields that were getting worn down by constant attacks, and allowed the British to replace their dwindling pilot pool, so on Eagle Day, the RAF was stronger than ever to meet the Luftwaffe’s big push.
Allied bombing did create bottlenecks, and indirectly won air superiority when General Hap Arnold ordered US escort fighters to go hunting German aircraft on their home airfields. But in the scheme of things, the Germans just decentralized their military industry and put everything underground. At the height of the Allied bombing campaign in 1944, the Germans produced almost more aircraft in one year than they did in the entire war. Now as costly as it was, like the Polesti strike, if the Allies had solely focused on bombing Germany’s oil reserves, more of their planes and tanks would have been immobilized and useless.Oil, airfields, and rail lines would have been better targets, than wasting the lives of valuable bomber crews bombing Berlin.
As far as breaking civilian morale, such bombing fails.Rotterdam was a last minute mistake, the Dutch has already capitulated. Germany’s will to fight was never diminished, nor Japan’s. And ironically, in the end the Allied (Well, except for the Soviets) ended up spending money to undo the damage they caused so as to use both Japan and Germany as their proxy shield walls against the Soviets in the Cold War.
Look no further than the same when Bush and co hit Iraq with shock and awe that was massive overkill to a civilian population that really did not need much persuasion to surrender once Saddam’s forces were defeated.
All it did was cost us more in rebuilding that was rife with corruption and incompetence, and lose the hearts and minds of those who might have welcomed us as liberators.
As one who has studied the matter both professionally and as a hobby, I agree with almost everything you said except for the last paragraph. IMHO, W’s biggest mistake was in supposing he/we had enough time to transform a Muslim culture (even assuming it could be done) into something like a democracy without first doing a drastic cull of the previous elite such as was done in Germany and Japan both during and after WWII. Heaven knows, there were human rights abuses aplenty to provide rhetorical cover.
If he/we were unwilling to do this*, knowing that the utterly unprincipled Progs were going to turn on him just as soon as it was politically expedient to do so (he had been a sentient adult when they did this before re. Vietnam, for God’s sake), he/we needed to use the time-tested Roman, English, etc. imperialist solution. That is, install a more compliant strong man, set up a base or two with secure logistics (what I foolishly thought to be the real objective), and then (mostly) leave well enough alone.
*Analysis is not advocacy. To will the end is to will the means, otherwise it is wiser by far to abandon that course of action.
“That is, install a more compliant strong man, set up a base or two with secure logistics”
Perhaps. But in South Korea we installed Rhee, who was a very temperamental and twitchy leader, using US resources to go after his political foes. In south Vietnam, we removed Diem and replaced him with Minh,who wasn’t much better in winning the hearts and minds of his people, the majority of whom lived in rural villages and only held allegiance to their head chief. Any strong man we could have installed in Iraq would have been little better, if not likely worse, than Saddam, who we had supported for years. America is not politically or culturally unified like ancient Rome. The high ideals we hold in our Constitutional and sense of fair play run up against the regime changing and nation building mentality of the CIA and the State department. So we do things by moral/immoral halves, and end up stuck in the middle of the road, to be run over by unintended consequences. As Yoda said, ‘Do, or do not”, there is no try.” Either go all imperialist, and plant our flag everywhere boldly or become non-interventionist and stop playing the cop of the world. I myself prefer the latter, as the former has never done much but get us stuck in proverbial tar babies that cost us more than they are worth
Ron;
Agree. Paying for the privilege of being ‘world cop’ is beyond stupid from a citizen’s point of view. Unless, of course, you’re a member of the globalist elite (aka the Cloud). Then it’s all good at Davos.
Imperialism is using your military power to take over somebody else’s cash flow. It is an economically logical policy, but it’s morality is open to question. And, as you say, there is always the possibility of error and blowback.
Under the Clintons we embarked on ‘reverse imperialism’, which is using our military power to take over other countries’ welfare caseload. Makes no sense until one realizes the role of the vast NGO, foundation and university Prog ecosystem in funneling money that would otherwise go to citizens into individual Cloud person pockets.
Yes, it’s all about the NGO “skim”, starting with the Clinton Foundation for the biggest skim at the front of the line. Very farsighted of that guy to figure it out and set it up.
Al, regarding ’43.. Could it be that State Dept screwed the pooch in Iraq, by immediately trying to do a “new thing”? Having Gen Franks oddly retire within a few months of the overthrow to write a book and kick back, basically allowed for trouble in leadership, IMO.
When Turkey blocked the 4ID, that was a big deal, and to me, that’s where ’43 committed a major blunder, in not ( to my knowledge) bending Turkey over a barrel and getting that done. Then, the inability to secure the Iranian border b/c we were scared. Hello! This was Korea or Vietnam all over again. A border with a hostile nation that we don’t really want to antagonize, so we allow them to undermine our effort AND supply the enemy.
So, in talking about what to do, no one mentioned Iran? AND if it was and Iran was “off the table” for reprisals, then their entire effort was dubious from the outset. I don’t blame ’43 as much as the State department idiots and Pentagon that were advising him. Major warning signs were there and they went ahead. Fine. But the ‘democracy project: Iraq” was idiotic and to me, a project foisted upon ’43 by a duplicitous and partisan State Department that hated Bush, but was willing to soak this adventure for everything they could get and play in their art of stagecraft of “country making 101”. Idiots. Then add on your progressive cut-in-run, and there you go… a failed bit. IMO, no one at State was really vested in making Iraq a go. Institutionally, a retarded place that is only helpful when a Democrat is President.
You have some good facts but your conclusions are all wrong. Bombing multiple sites was of value because while the Germans moved some manufacturing to distributed remote sites, they still have others in the middle of cities using the civilian population as human shields. The military has the job of winning and ending the war. At the point that we crossed the Rhine, we were invading Germany and Germans, like Japanese were going to fight hard and cost many lives if ways were not found to end the fighting in a faster manner than direct frontal assault.
As Gen. Sherman did in his march to Atlanta, he made the population, who was part of the war effort, feel the effects of the war directly, up close and personal. Who are you to say that the bombing of the cities was to no effect in lessening the resolve of the populace? Do you think the symbolic Doolittle Raid was only symbolic to America? No, it was a shot at the heart of the Japanese empire that made them, all of them, feel vulnerable, and I am sure, wonder just what their leaders had done to them.
As for Iraq, enough with the BDS, I put a lot of the blame on people like Paul Bremer who dismantled the Iraqi Forces and left a huge void for the resistance to fill. That unleashed hell on the populace and that is what they hate about America. That and the double dealing and back stabbing of the Kurds. We did hurt ourselves in that effort but it wasn’t “Shock & Awe” that was the cause.
You mentioned the betrayal of the Kurds, by Bush Sr. That made a sea change in my political views, and from then on I loss trust in the GOP. Years later when my Republican congressman voted twice for TARP, that was the last straw, and I since stopped calling myself a Republican, and become politically independent. I saw the power status quo for what it was between both parties, and how they abandoned their principles and lied to their constituents for power sake.
’41 lost me when he told the Baltics to stuff it. Bush’s decisions lead directly to the Serbian War too , IMO. His hands might have been tied, but he was not willing really do any big things sans Kuwait. ’41 never thought the wall would come down. He was dumbfounded by those events… and arguably not very prescient of where to put influence.
@ LetsPlay – Germany never used our civilians as shields, nor was manufacturing “moved”. The majority of most German factories have always been in small, family owned companies and often far from the major cities. This is still true today in the case of Baden-Württemberg – Stuttgart might be the major city, but most of the parts they assemble at Porsche and Mercedes comes from the Schwarzwald (Black Forrest).
Back in 1938-1945, European aircraft of the time were made primarily of wood. And any skilled cabinet maker or wood worker can quickly and easily built subcomponents. Multiply that by thousands of cabinet makers across Germany, and it’s impossible to stop.
Bombing cities was pointless as most production, as is still true in Germany today, was done in smaller towns. Records show that Allied bombing was so imprecise, much of German military production continued, despite the attacks in the Ruhr where the majority of steel and coal come from.
The smarter decision was the destruction of the transport and power systems; specifically railways, bridges, river barges and power plants. Why do you think the opening strikes in the Gulf war were those very same targets?
“…Back in 1938-1945, European aircraft of the time were made primarily of wood…”
I don’t believe that’s true of the Germans. It was true of the British which made the de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito a great plane made of plywood.
Adolf didn’t just decide to bomb London. The Brits were desperate to detour the German attack on airfields. Directly after a few stray German bombs were unloaded on London, which was not a target, Winston goaded Adolf into civilian bombing with a serious raid on Berlin. The plan worked.
Despite the bullshit the most bombed city in Britain wasn’t London, it was Liverpool.
but no one cares about liverpool because all the people there are inbred shite.
One has to wonder if the British decision to conduct terror bombings in Germany was a deliberate provocation designed to have Germany divert resources from their attack on the RAF in retaliation.
We Principled Libertarians stand behind you!… way, way, way back there behind you!
That’s why we wear our body armor backwards.
we noticed
I take some small joy in informing boomers of the ovens planned for them by those unfortunate enough to be born more recently. They inevitably proclaim “But it wasn’t me pushing these things”. I tell them “No one cares. The debt will be paid.”
I even like some of these Boomers, but we are reaching a bifurcation. The SWPL faggots will die. The neo-Norse will survive. And the White race will survive the semitic culling with the best of our genes passing through the needle. The future shall be populated with Whites innoculated against (((cunning lies)), and it shall be a bright future indeed.
One takes note that not all “dreamers” are necessarily illegal aliens. “Neo-Norse”? This calls to mind the communes of the 60s replete with role-play, but this time in bearskins and horned helmets instead of injun get-up.
There is a difference between informing boomers of their supposed fate, and delivering on it. Everybody dies, and boomers know that more intimately than others. Beware of people with nothing left to lose. They may die while taking a few assholes with them.
You mean like the boomer (68) who just shot a Congressman?
In any case no one is going to harm the Boomers, they are too old to worry about and will not be much an issue in a decade or two.The anger is there but the political will isn’t
Why would anyone bother when the people you don’t like are 65 and older.
No if a war is fought it will be aging Gen X , Sane Gen Y and Gen Z with a tiny smattering of the youngest Boomers thrown in
The source for understanding (((their))) methods…
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/tag/kevin-macdonald/
We are seeing some violence in the culture war in America, but for the most part it is still a Cold War. In other words, I don’t think it’s so much that the people on the right who adhere to Boomer Con morals do it because they want to curry favor with those people or fear social ostracism (which is a real fear), but they don’t want to get fired from their jobs. Unless you live in a gold-plated fortress in Manhattan or Florida (like Trump) or you live beyond both the Cloud’s blandishments and their reach, you have to at least play along with the Boomer lies so you don’t lose your livelihood. We have to accept the fact that the way to change our toxic culture is to either create alternative cultures (Benedict Option-style) or to get more people who aren’t our enemies into the position of writing our checks. It isn’t rocket science: the right needs more money; we need (and maybe have) the beginnings of a “high-low coalition,” not like the one the left has (the ghetto and the Soros banker class), but a coalition that covers everything from working-class to upper-middle class (and a few rogue billionaires like Trump would help).
Also, our revolution (if it comes) is, ironically, going to be like the Boomer one in that the young must lead the old. Kids in their late-teens and early 20s who don’t have the white guilt/holocaust guilt/assorted complexes are going to have to de-condition their elders, or at least lead by example (without being disrespectful, as the boomers were to their parents). Some people are beyond hope or salvaging (whites like Chris Matthews, who behaves as if he dropped a sheet of sunshine blotter acid and then watched “To Kill a Mockingbird” over and over again with his eyes peeled open like Alex in “Clockwork Orange”). I think a bridge can be built between alt-right and alt-light. We already agree on the fundamental issues like immigration.
Not all Boomers are into the libtard stuff. Many of us never were.
I saw the change coming as a kid (I’m a late Boomer) and well – even then, I realized things were changing for the worse.
Now? It’s not a far leap to see the Left wanting to kill us. It’s rather scarily thinkable. And the kicker? Those of other generations who blame all of us for what happened. The change began with the Silents and their Dr. Spock crap and it’s still happening today. I don’t blame the Silents though. Hell, they just wanted to do the best for their kiddies. They didn’t get that giving a kid TOO much turns out brats – both children and then adults.
I’m not sure about the Silents but one thing I’m sure of is that what people think of as the revolution that happened in Berkeley in the 60s happened in Germany in the 30s. It was a mistake to allow Marcuse and co. to come to American and teach.
The Frankfurt School was invited to the US in 1935 and supported (with a home at Columbia U.) by a wealthy Jewish financier. See the article in Wikipedia. The school re-opened in Frankfurt in 1953. They’ve almost completely destroyed the German sense of nationality and pride.
As said obliquely above, there’s no understanding the Boomer Phenomenon without looking at the effects of WWII. Dr Spock et. al. were university-based experts. Had not university-based experts provided the technological means that won the war_? Should not, then, university-based experts guide the raising of this post-war generation now being born_? To our parent’s generation the question answered itself.
We now know that much of post-war social ‘science’ was fraud cloaked in ‘physics envy’. If PC/feminism/multi-culturalism has taught us anything, it is that. Many of us saw that it was BS even in the ’60’s* but thought it basically a harmless con. Thinking it harmless was the critical mistake.
But why did the elite gate-keepers of the so-called greatest generation (which has at least as much as us to answer for) allow this fraud to assume power_? First, there was a great dilution in the ranks of the elite. I used to marvel at reading the obits of fellow officers of that generation: Plowboy in 1938 to sub-viceroy in 1948 to master of the pentagon in 1968_! That this entailed a dilution of quality we saw but did not understand.
Second, there was an abandonment of cultural, moral standards by that elite. Since university-based, social ‘science’ experts were in charge, everything would be fine. There was no need to take difficult, unpopular stands against what da yoot liked to do(i.e. sex, drugs and rock & roll). The point of morality, standards and discipline is that without them, what da yoot of every generation likes to do (the above + violence) will destroy civilization in an orgy of violence and anarchy. Every officer instinctively knows this, hence the fretting about the morality of mass-casualty air attacks.
If your troops are an undisciplined rabble, doing what da yoot likes to do, and the enemy is disciplined, you will lose. And if there’s one thing the Germans and Japanese were, it was disciplined. The Russians were largely a terrorized rabble that took unimaginable casualties for that reason, possibly contributing to the collapse of the USSR: Not enough of the ‘right tail’ left to actually run a command economy.
The ultimate cause of the abandonment of standards by the elite was their abandonment of God, also contributed to by war, probably more WWI than WWII. Without God, standards are unenforceable in Western Culture, period.
Forgot the *endnote: At that time, IIRC, there were something like five contradictory theories about personality formation. I didn’t take a 5 Sigma IQ to realize that this meant that, at most, only one could be right, and the likely true answer was, ‘none of the above’. The Berkley answer from the ’60’s to evade this little unpleasantness was that it didn’t matter, since there is no ‘truth’. Genius_!
Well, if we are going to revisit what the Boomers did and didn’t do…
If you like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Act of 1965 and the War on Poverty, you can credit LBJ and MLK, not Boomers.
If you like feminism, you can credit Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir, not Boomers.
Like sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll? Credit Timothy Leary, Gloria Steinem/Hugh Hefner/Helen Gurley Brown and Elvis, not Boomers.
The environmental movement? Credit Rachel Carson, not a Boomer.
Youth culture? Time magazine, 1944. Boomers were not the editors.
Boomers just happened to be there. Some followed the leaders and progressive Boomers assumed the mantle.
If you look at Europe for the avant garde of cultural transformation you will see the change from the 19th century empire ethic to the 20th century equality ethic occurring during the 1920’s. WWI killed off the confidence of Christian empire building and introduced female voting. The elites adopted Marxist attitudes which have become dominant in all the white countries. The boomers in the 60’s only adopted the prevailing chic of Marxist attitudes. They did not invent them.
‘this is how cultures unravel’
One of the buzzwords in the 80’s and 90’s was multi-culturalism. Isn’t that just a word for an unravelling culture?
There’s been interesting arguments on all sides of the dissident Right regarding the Julius Caesar ruckus. One way to see it is: is it effective? Does it work? Perhaps that is the only pertinent question. If the Right’s constant civil deference to CultMarx offensives is reciprocated by the Left with constant platform denial and black bloc violence, the deference hardly seems worth the effort in forbearance.
Myself? At this point I’m less interested in Consistent Conservative Principles than winning. Win first. All else can wait.
Always remember that if you don’t follow their lead, many of them want you dead. Never forget that.
“Again, the Boomer generation can be forgiven for clinging to their principles even if it means defeat. They came into an America that was the colossus, standing astride the world as the defender of freedom and the exponent of economic prosperity. The principles they inherited were cooked up by people who conquered the world. America in the 50’s and 60’s was a society that was sure it had things figured out. If you were ten years old in the early 60’s, truth, justice and the American way made perfect sense.”
Equally important is that the Boomers came of age in an America that was 90% white, and with a largely homogeneous dominant culture. The Boomer notion of Diversity was that people of all races, colors and creeds would assimilate seamlessly into the dominant culture. Hence it’s a bit of a shock for them to find that clitoris clipping is more important than women’s rights in some cultures. Who wudda thunk?
It may be a bit of a shock, but they seem to be rolling with it, or simply pretending it doesn’t exist. The human capacity for self-deception is extraordinary.
“The people with a future get to write the past”
Great line. I will use that.
Cultures typically evolve over relatively long periods of time, and they tend to change slowly. The exception occurs when a barbarian horde invades another land, kills all the males, enslaves and impregnates the women, and then imposes their way of life. There hasn’t been many barbarian hordes running around lately, so technology has stepped up to provide a new paradigm for conquest. It’s called the smart phone, and it’s the perfect covert tool of memetic reprogramming. If you want to change a culture quickly, forget the militaristic tactics and switch to high-tech brainwashing.
The argument ad technology has never jived with my experience. I saw the TV revolutionize media from the radio era and the computer/smartphone since. Propaganda really does have diminishing returns and I think that point was reached long ago. My little township has men my age who never even bothered with TV and yet many of them are just as cucked as they come.
Thing is, we’ve lived under the rule of progressive culture for so long, it’s anomalous to find anyone who still remembers the wisdom that was torn away from us in the 1960s, much less anyone who will repeat it. I spend a lot of time with my grandchildren and they’re far more aware of the world around them, despite all the techno distractions, and that gives me hope.
My advice to boomers everywhere is to HELP THESE YOUNG PEOPLE! If you were too selfish for family, at-least donate to some of these alt-right kids making a cultural impact or do local charity work that will impact your white neighbors’ children. These young people have the will, but many of them lack the resources. They need to be married young, they need to have your connections to the job market, they need to have you there to understand local politics and how they can make an impact.
Far from brainwashing, I think these ubiquitous gadgets can only help us right now. I keep in touch with my children and grandchildren now in ways that I could never have before. That can never, of course, replace the family gathering or the community itself, but it’s a tool we have that can be used to ensure those communities are able to carry on against modern odds.
I have never “fit in” with a group. I wish the South had won the War. I’m teaching my 8 Generation Z grandkids to be as red pilled as I possibly can, behind their squishy late Gen X/early Millennial parents’ backs.
I hope I can convince them to let me teach all of the kids to shoot, fish, cook, sew, household repairs, basic auto repairs, etc.,
I just want what I teach them to win out, over the white noise.
Who knows? It just might. Grandma has some really, really interesting stories to tell.
I’m a pre-boomer, born in 1938. Someone once said there was at least a hundred years between 1940 and 1945. At least. I’ve watched the spawn of the returning Greatest Generation, raised on Dr. Spock, TV, and the Pill gradually destroy the morality of this nation. It is my unoriginal belief that no nation survives without that morality. We are about to see.
The Boomers are loathsome, to be sure, but they didn’t raise themselves.
It was the “greatest generation” that shit the bed in the parenting department.
Sorry, but it needed to be said.
Liberal Boomers came from liberal GGers.
Yes, I don’t know why the decline is perceived as a generational thing when it’s been left vs. right (or fake right) all along.
I agree. Born in 1947 visited nam in 68 came back to a different America.
No one can accuse Curtis LeMay of sentimentality, especially when it came to the death of civilians, yet even he recognised that the deliberate targeting of civilians was morally wrong, collateral damage, however, he recognised was unavoidable reality in war and had to be accepted as a matter of regrettable fact. In one of his books he admits that the excuse of military targeting was pretty thin but it was always there.
He recognised that it was no use winning the war if you become what you despise.
The post war Strategic bombing survey was pretty damning when it came to the results of urban “dehousing”. What was interesting is that when energy/infrastructure was targeted the payoffs were huge. Had the allies concentrated on these targets earlier on it is quite possible that the war would have been ended sooner. The fact of the matter was that, in the early part of the war, the Allies had difficulty hitting any smaller than a suburb during daylight and a city during the night. By the end of the war, the Allied respect for human life had become so cheapened that you had abominations like Dresden happen. Why Rotterdam is wrong and Dresden right is a real exercise in moral sophistry. We were becoming what we despised.
Conservatives, as opposed to Rightists, generally fall into two groups. The first group are the “slow” liberals who don’t know where to draw the line, and the second are “aesthetic” conservatives who find the whole idea of “Left” behaviour “undignified” and provide rationlisations for their avoidance of it by appeal to “high principle”. The problem is that their principles are completely warped and work in tandem with the Left.
These knuckleheads insist on Queensbury rules in a street knife fight. The ideas of freedom of speech, civic behaviour and tolerance are suicidal when you have a opponent who rejects these concepts and wants to take you down. Moral action in these circumstances is a matter of knowing how far you can go, not that all restraints are off. Restricting freedom of speech is perfectly OK to individuals who would destroy freedom of speech, but I’m not allowed to become a Liar in the process. Traditional Western culture is quite clear that there are moral places where you are just not allowed to go.
I’d never thought I would a say this, but to paraphrase Justin Trudeau, when you murder you enemies–as opposed to taking their life justly–they win.
If you don’t survive then what you believe does not matter.
Ask the Aztecs about that.
Having “We Were Better Than Them” chiseled on your gravestone may be compensation enough for those training for the priesthood, but for most it is no comfort at all.
Morality is a luxury that we can often afford, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the underlying realities.
Do you really believe there is no use winning a war if you become what you despise?
Would you fight a war that required the extermination of 800 million Muslims with anthrax, nerve gas, and wholesale slaughter, or just surrender to Sharia and avoid all that brutality?
As for me I will defend my own and I don’t care how many I have to bury to make that happen.
I believe you must crush your enemies by any means necessary. I am sure I would feel remorse after the deed is done, but as Elisabeth did, I would have persisted and would wear a shirt that said so.
As a character in Lucifer’s Hammer observed, a society has the ethics it can afford.
Sometimes the purse becomes threadbare.
“Would you fight a war that required the extermination of 800 million Muslims with anthrax, nerve gas, and wholesale slaughter, or just surrender to Sharia and avoid all that brutality?”
We are already engaged in a third World War – to believe otherwise is little more than idiocy. Each of the last two such wars were decided less by the numbers of soldiers killed than by the numbers of civilians killed and dispossessed of their homes.
So long as casualties are limited to those who are forced to actively fight a war can go on forever. When those who inactively support the combatants are inconvenienced the war will lose its romantic luster and the support of those who foot the bill.
Considering the basic tenets set forth in the koran, (note, no capital “K”) any war against the muslims (see note above) will REQUIRE the “wholesale slaughter” of at least 800 millions of the enemy. Anything less will amount to a “surrender to Sharia.”
Prior wars against islam (need I repeat myself?) were ended when the so called “victors” decided they had killed enough and would therefore show mercy to the vanquished. Mercy is NOT a muslim virtue, rather, it is considered a weakness to be exploited. Perhaps, had Charles Martell killed every muslim he or his army captured we might not be in this situation now. We can’t know that, only that the muslim army retreated, retrenched and returned.
Maybe we should consider God’s instructions to Joshua prior to the battle for Jericho.
Lemay remarked that if the Allies lost the war he would be one of many charged with warcrimes. He accepted his guilt in the war.
People quote LeMay’s comment without understanding it.
All the allied generals would have been charged with war crimes if the axis won.
IF, the Axis had won, they would have welcomed our Generals just as we accepted theirs. Only the very worst were judged at Nuremberg and fewer faced execution for “war crimes.” Joining the winning side would have been palatable to many because that is human nature.
You are correct. LeMay had no capacity for guilt. That is neither a criticism of the man or a recommendation.
General Sherman made the same remark.
I wonder how thought out British strategy was at the start of WW2. The German air force was very effectively bombing British air bases and manufacturing facilities. At some point they may have had to sue for peace because the RAF wouldn’t have existed anymore.
But then they adopted terror bombing of German cities. It went on for a while with the Germans simply denouncing them as evil to the world. Eventually the Germans let off the RAF and started retaliatory terror bombings. The diversion of resources is what allowed the RAF to survive.
Ryan, your point about the Germans making a tactical switch is correct, but I read awhile back that the Lufewaffe was unable to dent British aircraft production… as it was spread out. It was the attrition of German planes that lead to the switch to try and maximize destruction on British psyche. I’ll try and find the book I read that speaks to this… but credit goes to the Brits for cranking out fighters for the fight of their lives. They persisted! Heh.
Thanks for the info sir.
You don’t think there’s a Heavenly Blueprint (“Natural Law”) that might include ethno-states with varying “natural” political systems, e.g. NWEuropean more individualistic with women at the dinner table?
If it is a just war, then winning is the most important thing, though the ends still don’t justify all possible means, or even many evil means. If Germans wanted to use their civilians as hostages (or a mid-east terrorist wants to put a WMD lab below a children’s hospital), it is double effec – you must destroy the enemy, but to do so you can’t avoid collateral damage.
As to the AmCon libertarian, they seem to only have one eye open if they can’t see the alteration so they do a mock assassination of the current sitting president each show as barbaric, but only interrupting the blood porn is.
Race fascism meets race realism pretty quickly if everyone spends 99 bucks at ancestry.com to have an ethnicity analysis done. Race will lose its political value from this perspective.
Not really.
I am part Native Indian.
I also know what works and what sort of society I would want to thrive and survive and that would be true even if they wouldn’t have me around.
Ditto.
I have now experienced the thrill of having committed a thought crime, and can never go back. The contact paranoia from the down arrows is making me wonder if ancestry.com is a front group for law enforcement, and I am having second thoughts about sending in my sample.
Companies like ancestor sell your genetic information to whoever wants it, mostly companies that find unique genes and patent them though I’m sure if Law Enforcement wanted them, they’d sell them
This column probably needed to be written, but most of us are past the point that it represents. The right is congealing into a bloc that will have to be accounted for, and which is building a culture and infrastructure that will facilitate its ability to function without having to use that owned or converged by the left, and thus outside its control.
They and the cucked right see this happening and are desperate to stop it, but are unable to.
The final form it takes is slightly in question, but as long as it is not jewed up, so to speak, it will be just fine.
Yep. I’m just making notes on what I’m seeing on the way out.
@ thezman – I suspect the late Roman satirist, Juvenal, said exactly the same thing some 2,000 years ago! 🙂 Gone but not forgotten. However, we should be so lucky!
The idea of precision bombing in WWII is not reality. I doubt hitting one side of the street, but not the other, was discussed very often. The bombing of cities, by all sides, was considered an instrument of all out war. We Boomers put President Trump in office. The Silent Majority are Boomers. Every group has its’ diseased portions. You are generalizing greatly. Again. Very best regards.
Boomers did not ‘put Trump in the White House’ as much as they were dragged kicking and screaming along for the ride by those in the Alt-Right after your NEOCON heroes Bush, Rubio and Cruz were exposed as frauds and sanctimoniously dismissed.
For months core Trump supporter put up with arrogant displays of smug indignation and rants of moral outrage from boomers over Trump’s supposed ‘shocking’ behavior on the campaign trail. Boomers fretted, frowned and wrung their soft hands, but given Hillary was the only other option – you had no choice. On election day, just enough of you showed up to get the job done.
The Flight 93 Election was the essay that put Trump over the top. That was most certainly not written by a boomer. It was written to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Anton
Born 1970. Story checks out. If anyone hasn’t read the essay, it’s still worth reading just as an example of how to be persuasive:
http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/
Wow. Wow. That essay says it all.
And BEST of all… that author… accepted a position in the Trump administration. Winning.
Roulf, with respect, my heros are unknown to you. You are mind reading at best. To repeat. To state the obvious: No group is monolithic. Labeling people with broad tags Alt Right etc is simply lazy, shallow depictions without a trace of factual representation. Boomers were born between certain dates. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Just like all other Americans. I suppose being in a pact and disliking another pact assuages tribal impulses to some degree. Thank you for your response. Very best regards.
Walt, when I wrote ‘your heroes’ I thought it was clear I was referring to your generation’s heroes. Why else would such self-serving, devious men continue to be elected year after year? Also, you are a member of a ‘pact’ (as you put it) whether you realize it or not. Everyone is. And I would even point out that a staunch unwillingness to admit or acknowledge this or even speak on these terms without being dismissive or condescending is one of the deep fallacies of your generation.
This leads us into the ‘No group is monolithic’ cop-out. One may as well proudly announce that not all dogs bark at cars. You cannot hide behind some vague curtain of plurality while at the same time proclaim yourself victors as a moral majority. When I write of boomers I speak of their mindset and taken as a whole most boomers are deeply misguided individuals. One need only look around them at the sad state of our society for ample proof of that. Note I write MOST, not all. Nor can all of the blame for where we are today be laid at your generation’s feet.
Anyone who goes on about boomers and other generations is indulging in collective-speak – not a very reliable path to the truth. Some of us are not collectivists.
Given that the other choice was Hillary probably gave Trump enough extra votes to grab the ring. Look at France, where a pretty boy with no history and no platform other than “change” and some vague form of “make France great again” has swamped the elections. The squishy political middle is drooling all over the guy.
The Dems are just figuring out that Russia! and Impeach Trump! are political dead ends. I would personally prefer that they keep up the freak-out rather than toning it down and trying to schmooze the political middle again.
No no no, why would the Milleniums and GenX put a BOOMER in the White House? That’s what President Trump IS, you know.
Damn, there’s some convoluted “reasoning” here!
Except I didn’t write that Millennials and GenX put Trump in the White House, did I? I wrote that boomers reluctantly tagged along behind the forces of the Alt-Right and coalesced enough in the end to get the job done.
Excuse me, but I was likely a Trump supporter before you were. Taking a 20 year period and saying that everyone born in that time frame thinks the same is a dumb idea. And I repeatedly told people Trump could win it, long before he was the nominee. It was a change election.
Roulf: yes, we boomers ARE indeed the ones who put Trump in office. We boomers were the Tea Party. And after being demonized by the Democrat-Media complex, and betrayed by the very Republicans who WE put in office, we morphed into.the so-called ‘Alt-Right and subsequently elected Trump.
The boomers you speak of who had to be dragged kicking and screaming are commonly referred to as THE LEFT. Just sayin’.
The Prussians, who last time looked were some kind of Kraut, used germ warfare against the Parisians in 1871 or so.
Source_? Did they use tribochets to fling dead plague victims into Paris like the Moslems did in the middle ages_?
Doing actual germ warfare requires knowing about germs. The germ theory of disease was not even widely known or accepted until 1880 or so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
@ Al from da Nort – Evidently it doesn’t take that much knowledge of germ warfare to hand out blankets infected with smallpox to know the results.
So Karl;
Why change the subject_? The point at is whether your folk, the Prussians, handed out infected blankets to the French in 1870 or not_? I _think_ the answer is ‘no’ for any such thing. It was, by modern – WWII-type – standards, a pretty ‘civilized’ limited war fought for modest objectives.
And given the degree of hatred at that time, I’m pretty sure if the French had _any_ evidence, they would have blared ‘germ warfare’ to the world (if anybody could have understood the concept at the time) and never let go of it.
Just like certain individuals have never let go of the ‘smallpox blanket’ calumny. BTW, if it ever did happen, it was the _British_ who did it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare
…point at _issue_ …. Grrrr. I hate the spellchecker
@ AFDN – I’m not changing the subject, just making a point that “germ warfare” isn’t limited to those who with an formal education in immunology and biology.
Just like internment camps in the US with Japanese Americans, the Brits had already done it to the Boer civilian women and children. I’m sure there are other civilizations, nations and countries who did horrible things to their neighbors too long before the US and Europe were doing these things. With respect to history, we’re still the late comers on this planet.
But to your point, I wouldn’t say ‘no’ to any such thing. It’s quite possible these things could have occurred and were simply not recorded. Just because we don’t know, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen despite the ‘gentleman’s agreements of the day.
I believe it was rabid animals.