Political Onanism

Note: Behind the green door is a post about the classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a film I did not like, a post about code-switching and the Sunday podcast which remains a morning edition for now. Subscribe here or here.

Carl Schmitt famously said that “the political is reducible to the existential distinction between friend and enemy.” The shorthand you hear in dissident circles is that politics is about friends and enemies. You can see this in your own life when it comes to some issue with which you have been on the opposite side of a friend. That person may now be a former friend if the issue was important at the time. It is why families often avoid talking about politics during the holidays.

A practical aspect of this reality is that political activism should always seek to harm the opponent and boost your side. An action that makes the other side look bad is good activism and it is even better activism if it also makes you look good. Of course, bad activism is that which boosts the enemy and harms you. The Charlottesville rally in 2018 turned out to be disastrous activism for the alt-right. It rallied their enemies and gutted their support in the broader community.

Life is not always so cut and dried. Generational politics, for example, often feels like good politics to the people doing it. Whether it is young people moaning about old people having had it easy or old people moaning about young people having it easy, the people doing it always feel good about it. A Nick Fuentes feels like a hero when he makes fun of adults for being adults. He thinks it is good politics because it brings in money and gets his young fans excited.

Of course, this goes both ways. Matt Walsh from the Daily Wire often makes fun of Zoomers for being whiny and soft. Recently, a young girl posted a video of herself crying about having to work forty hours a week and still not having money to live like she did in college so Matt Walsh made sport of her. The young people who always complain about the boomers then piled in to tell him he was a horrible person for not empathizing with the young girls in the video.

At a personal level, generational politics is good as it makes money for the people doing it, but at another level it is bad for their overall political mission. The only people engaged in generational politics are white people who are either in white identity politics or aligned with it. Nick Fuentes casts himself as a white identitarian, but he spends a lot of time mocking white people. Matt Walsh opposes antiwhite politics, but like Nick Fuentes, he spends most of his time attacking white people.

You will note that the people who control the culture are fine with this sort of politics, despite it coming from people they hate. In popular culture you will never see a young black guy calling his grandfather a boomer. You will not see an old Jewish guy laughing at his grandson’s student loan debt. For the people who control the centers of cultural production, generational politics is only for white people. It is one part of their antiwhite pogroms that have come to define popular culture.

Generational politics is not politics at all but a form of political onanism. It is not only a fruitless activity, but it also discourages the sort of politics that could bear fruit. It is no different from the war of the sexes business, where feminists and anti-feminists seek to pit white males against white females. Whatever the truth of the mutual critiques, it is not an activity that can lead to anything other than temporary ecstasy. It is a form of politics that can never lead to good activism or any activism.

For example, look at the recent trend of attacking Reagan. Critics correctly note that he signed off on immigration reform. He also ushered in economic reforms that now feel like bad ideas, especially for young people. This critique of Regan usually ends with angry shouting at boomers for having enjoyed the good times that followed the reforms of that period. The boomers are bad people for having enjoyed a good stock market and low interest rates over the last forty years.

Let us assume that Reagan and his supporters were evil people who knew what they were doing would harm their grandchildren and great grandchildren. Let us also pretend that the boomers all agreed it would wreck the country for their children and grandchildren who they would live to see. Even if you could prove this, what would be the point of doing it? The most you get from it is the momentary satisfaction of shaking your first at an imaginary version of the past.

The reason to care about the past is to understand how you reached the present and to have some sense of what comes next. Understanding the politics around the Reagan era immigration policies is about understanding the nature of the people behind the just proposed immigration reform bill in the senate. Chuck Schumer put that together because he hates you and he has always hated you. There is no talking him and his allies out of hating you. He is the forever enemy.

There you see the problem with generational politics. The young people trembling with anger over the thought of Ronald Reagan are focusing on their grandparents rather than the people who finked on their grandparents, the same people who are now trying to close the door on America, by opening up the borders. It is a politics that turns old friends into imaginary enemies and enemies into fans cheering the people attacking one another in the arena of generational politics.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.

319 thoughts on “Political Onanism

  1. Politics is Power.
    That’s it.
    Like electricity.

    Carl Schmidt is Weimar then the Nazis, he’s also German. Nothing like us.
    Friend/Enemy is for women and schoolchildren.
    Not war or politics.

    Charlottesville; if the minor indeed trivial setback of Charlottesville has you giving up, stop showing up.
    Politics isn’t for you.
    As noted in the post they hate White people, so we might as well be feared. Black it up a little.
    Blacks have some measure of political power and leeway, even respect in America- why?
    Fear. Blacks do Charlottesville daily, although usually with shooting. They are useless for anything else, a disappointment in all respects EXCEPT violence and Triumphant Bad Optics.
    The entire rap music industry is bad optics and worse audio- can you learn nothing from Emminem?

    Good optics are for those silly women who marched into the Capitol. One was shot, dozens jailed, but everyone admires their martyr optics.
    And their sub cuck male relatives.
    You wouldn’t have a seconds peace jailing Arab Grannies, but we have to worry about good optics, because of – cut the 💩 – bourgeois property interests.

    Then quit, if you’re even for a moment concerned about optics , especially from official media.

  2. The reason why only white people have anything that could be called “generational politics” is because generational politics is a subset of ideological politics (e.g. the Boomers draw the ire of many because they are broadly associated with certain ideological trends) and white people are the only ones currently concerned with ideological politics at all. Minorities are basically apolitical in that sense; they only engage with the political process if they can get something out of it, not to advance a belief or a style of life.

    This is not going to change for the foreseeable future, so in order to the best we can with the times we are given, we have to become realists of a higher order. Realists of a lower order (who are actually not realists at all) see “realism” as definitionally opposed to all “idealism” and they talk as if they would like to sweepingly disregard the latter and dismiss it from the scene. Realists of a higher order know that ideals are the things that motivate spirits and actuate persons, so they must be dealt with in their own terms.

    There is no escaping the fact that in order to make a difference in today’s politics, you have to win the ideological battle. That is, you have to present an explanation of things that is grand, beautiful, noble, and that withstands intellectual skepticism. As always, a truly effective political restoration is not the result of “new” ideas. It is the result of determined political ontology critiquing the aberrations of its own time, so as get to the bottom of them and reveal underneath the perennial reality which is always there.

    • One quibble. One need not win the ideological battle. One need only win the moral battle. Even commies fight for good over evil, though they misunderstand the concept of good/evil.

      • Steve

        Took the words right out of my mouth here. It is the moral argument that wins all. This is why people like Sailer and most conservatives are retards. You can show a leftist pages of charts, graphs, statistics and present all of the facts and it won’t do a damned thing. They’re not interested in that. Showing that you are a good person by kissing the feet of kangz and kweens and excusing their barbaric, violent and destructive behavior is what wins the day. Don’t do this and you will risk losing your livelihood and/or your freedom.

    • Whites used to be ideological. I’m not so sure they still are. What has become a tribal divide between whites doesn’t seem to me to have very much to do with ideology anymore.

    • There’s no end to argument. It goes back and forth until you don’t know if reality is real. At some point you have to quit it.

  3. At this point, no one gonna stop non-white legally looting white people
    Nazis would laugh off at their graveyard, if they rule over you at least you still have your women and better life
    Now all of your pretty women and wealth taken over by Shlomo and action Jackson

    Good riddance, White America

  4. Boomers (and I’m not talking about any one age cohort here—though there are examples enough therein—but a mindset) are a lot like third-generation family business owners. They’ve grown up in relative prosperity, but have no real notion of what that entailed. For instance, the congressmen who voted on the 1924 Immigration Act may well have experienced the Reconstruction Era. They had few illusions about race and got that they weren’t very proficient at governing people from Sicily or the Pale of Settlement. Those who voted on the 1965 Act, on the other hand, were fresh from the experience of WW II and filled with sanctimony. Their families had been away from Europe long enough—unlike our Founders—that they had forgotten how intractable internecine conflict was there, and imagined that they could easily manage not only those peoples but eventually the rest of the world as well (they were already hard at work on the ignorant Whites in their own South). Of course, like third-generation business owners, they are running the country right into bankruptcy, and the younger generations are left to fight it out with the immigrants for whatever’s left over.

    • There goes one of them again. Did you not read about the uselessness of saying that very stuff?

      Jaysus wept

  5. It’s really getting to the point where Whites just need to band together regardless of generation or language – we’re all the damn target now and we’d better freaking come to that realization and take appropriate measures.

    • Agree. They hate us all. They don’t distinguish between us. Maybe we shouldn’t either.

  6. This is an excellent point. We need people out in front in our movement who are mature. Blaming Dad or blaming Junior is not getting us anywhere.

    That video of Paul Krugman saying that in the end the power that white Americans have is going to go away and then smiling demonically afterward is the issue.

    Someone chose the uniforms and the teams. Those someones hold the power to have made that choice. We must do the same. We can and should criticize our own and more importantly mitigate, disempower and disown the stupid as much as we can. As important is to have a set of positive, constructive projects that are of service to our people, as well as a positive and constructive vision that we must lead them toward.

    I sense some good memes of Fuentes being a clown and blaming Dad while Krugman and Mayorkas admire the borders they have burnt to nothing.

    Alternative primary education and a support network for young parents and our youngsters is a critical and vital project. Whatever we can do to further its development and shepherding our people into its benefits will beat Boomer/Zoomer blaming hands down.

    • “I sense some good memes of Fuentes being a clown and blaming Dad while Krugman and Mayorkas admire the borders they have burnt to nothing.”

      And this is the key point. Depending upon your viewpoint, the Boomers or the Zoomers may be idiots or snowflakes, but people like Krugman and Mayorkas are mortal enemies. Avoid scattering your forces and concentrate on focusing your fire where it belongs. That’s the key.

      • Fuentes seems to be a sort of man-child who has never kissed a girl because he is either asexual or gay. Seen his show a few times. He has some good takes and some terrible ones. Definitely lacks maturity. I think Z is correct that the reason he is somewhat tolerated by the system is because his personality is too flawed for him to be seen as a viable threat. Kept around to send seekers into a blind alley by packaging good ideas together with futile ones.


        Society could use more religion, but not packed together with blind adherence to the Pope, especially the current one. And he seems to encourage sectarian bickering between prots and catholics. Extremely detrimental.

        Girls are icky! True.. many younger girls are fallen nowadays. The amount of tattoos, crass behavior, unrealistic worldviews and etc etc do afflict far too many younger females in current times. But the solution is not to incel. That is just defeatist and unproductive, not to mention it denies the inherent nature of the sex. Females are biologically prone to be followers. The solution is to lead them. At the very least you can lead your own woman rather than eschewing them and leaving them to the control of the enemy who controls nearly everything they are exposed to on their phones. If you want society to be more patriarchal, that’s not a bad thing. Everyone was happier when it was, women included, though why would they admit it? Point being, a patriarchal society was one where men protected and led their women, not gave up on them.

        I don’t know if he is a hostile actor or not. I do think he might be, the Kanye West thing was perplexing af… but I don’t know for sure. At the very least he lacks wisdom and flexibility.

        • “Fuentes is somewhat tolerated by the system is because his personality is too flawed for him to be seen as a viable threat.”

          If he was “somewhat tolerated by the system” they’d demonetize his YouTube account. Instead they banned him from YouTube and took away his right to fly.

          “And he seems to encourage sectarian bickering between prots and catholics. Extremely detrimental.”

          Oh brother. It’s called humor.

    • This whole Rodney King “can’t we all just get along” stuff is what’s wrong with this whole topic. NO, as a matter of fact we can’t. Now what? There is not vision of the future because there isn’t even a future in this current paradigm.

      The current paradigm is nesting Boomer sitting there on their Medicare saying “can’t we all just get along” like todays Z post, while the younger, under 35 people are saying “maybe we can do communism right the second time around. Maybe with a racial twist.” The only thing future generations will be envisioning is trying to get a working visa to some other place.

      Preening is annoying.

      • If there is a place where our people might not be a scapegoated underclass in 20 years it’s Ireland I think. Already has largely happened in the good old USA. Once thought Poland, but they have been too sheltered. Surviving will require having learned hard lessons, the doom just hasn’t hit Poland yet. We will see how they react when it does.

        If anyone is truly to bear the brunt of the blame however(other than the obvious culprits, but that’s a given, demons will do demonic things, it’s their nature), it’s the men who once actually did have the power to stand against evil, yet did nothing out of fear. At least Elon did a little public barking before he put his collar back on.

        Case and point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham#Controversial_views

        • Ireland’s not looking that great these days. Their “Taoiseach” (Prime Minister) is a half-Indian fudgepacker. They’ve been importing foreigners by the droves and there was that incident a few months ago where some Middle Easterner went stabby on natives in Dublin, if I have it right. And when there was a national outcry TPTB labeled protestors as “Extreme right”, “xenophobes”, all the usual.

          • US media ignoring it, because of course they are. But tens of thousands marched against immigration today there. Not against “Green energy” or “Pension reform” or any of the other safe for the system strawmen that take the focus away from the root cause of our disenfranchisement.

            Remember, Unions died in Detroit and elsewhere because they brought the blacks in and eroded solidarity though racial disharmony. Once, the manufacturing leader of the world, in a few decades turned into a joke.

            Also, dozens of “refugee centers” have burned down. The Irish have balls.

    • RealityRules: “That video of Paul Krugman saying that in the end the power that white Americans have is going to go away and then smiling demonically afterward is the issue.”


      Thanks in advance.

  7. People could and did forsee this at the time.

    Reagan won 49 states on the backs of patriotic white people. He was the implicit and explicit whote vote. He had no legitimate business offering ANY amnesty whatsoever anymore than trump had business taking advice from that big asset whore to do a platinum plan.

  8. Zman, your point that intergenerational politics is not ‘helpful’ to the White nationalist cause is well taken . . . BUT.

    I see an enormous amount of butthurt in this thread, on both sides. So as part of a mid/later boomer couple (end of ’58/beginning of ’61) and a parent of a Millennial and a Gen Z son, I would argue I do see and understand and sympathize – again, with both sides.

    No, not all boomers. And not all millennials, and not all silents. But we all have our exceptions and personal experiences. I would have hoped that the IKAGO and NAXALT fallacies would have been widely understood here sufficiently to prevent their use in defending one or blaming another generation, but we have a lot of newer commenters who appear to be – in general – of an older age and mindset. Look, whatever generation you happen to be, stop taking every discussion as a personal attack! Don’t enough of us understand that, while the existence of the occasional black genius is real, the massive majority of said race is intellectually lacking? Don’t we understand how rapidly things have changed since 1950, and how that change has accelerated via technology in the last two decades? Why does it seem everyone is suddenly discarding every other understanding and the belief that stereotypes are both exaggerations but also based on a plethora of anecdotes (i.e. data) to instead insist “I’m not, but you are” like a seven year old playground spat?

    Jeez, folks, calm down and engage your brains, your compassion, as well as your identity and common sense here.

    Like many old folks here (and yes, if you are a boomer you are not ‘a mature voter’ or a ‘senior citizen’ – you are OLD), I started working in high school. All my friends did, too. But I grew up in an 85+% White America. While there were blacks in my middle and high schools, there were almost none on my block, and I thought Spanish was an exotic and interesting sounding language compared with French, which was the only language offered as an ‘extra’ in elementary school. Yes, I studied Spanish 7-10th grades, but I knew no one of hispanic/mestizo descent until I left college and all the Nicaraguans and Salvadorans began flooding DC and NoVa in the mid/late 1980s. Suddenly Spanish didn’t seem nearly so exotic.

    So lesson 1 here reinforced: IKAGOs and NAXALTs are one thing and mass immigration/replacement is another entirely. Both in personal and generational opinions and experiences, as well as overall social/economic circumstances. TIMES HAVE CHANGED. Like it or not, in your neighborhood or not, the labor market – and the housing market – and the educational experience – and everything else that people born after the boomer years had to deal with were factually much more difficult – because they were much less White – than their parents.

    I could peruse the want ads and walk into a store and fill out a job application and meet the manager I might end up working for. My sons? They have to submit an online application that is scanned by a computer and sorted by a BIPOX womyn ‘resource specialist.’ I first earned cash by babysitting and my brother delivered papers and cut lawns. Except in rare locales, those jobs don’t exist any longer. A safe, White suburban neighborhood – or work environment – is more an ideal memory than a reality today.

    What teens/young adults have to deal with today is a different a far more hostile world. Fact, not opinion. My God folks – stop with the “It wasn’t my fault, I didn’t do it, you are all just crybabies” responses. That doesn’t mean I don’t get irritated as hell with my own kids, because basic human nature hasn’t changed, but I fully recognize that their world is not my world. As much as I took them to the park or on playdates, they never had the safety and freedom I did. As broke as we went paying Christian school tuition so they learned in a majority White environment, they didn’t enjoy the same neighborhood schooling and friendships my husband and I did.

    And I’m already writing a damned book so I’ll stop here.
    But for the love of God, people, stop emoting and start thinking again, please.

    • “I would have hoped that the IKAGO and NAXALT fallacies would have been widely understood here sufficiently to prevent their use in defending one or blaming another generation…”

      No argument on your basic premise, 3g4me. However, since one gratuitous assertion (argument?)—as in IKAGO or NAXALT—is logically and sufficiently refuted by another gratuitous assertion, there is almost an irresistible temptation to engage in such fruitless exchange.

      I am guilty myself of such, but do attempt to add a bit more to support my assertions and hopefully get folk to think about their intergenerational bias. There is no shortage of Boomers reading and posting here, which I assume is to their credit.

    • Well said. Yes, of course generational discussions as politics are often not helpful. Yes, they derisive On the other hand, everyone knows what it means when they are called a Boomer, particularly the Boomers themselves. It appears that generational realities extends over borders as well.
      If I am to be a race realist, then generational realist is part of the package. And yes , the old Jew is calling his grandson whiny about student loan debt. Yes, if the black knows his grandfather, he’s probably slinging around “Boomer” at him because even his young adult life was more straightforward/prosperous.
      Generational patterns offer up information about what’s happening to us and what we can expect in the future. Ironically, I can tell that our good host is Gen X or late Boomer because he doesn’t like generational divisions, a hallmark of our generation. I can tell you that know particular social shift will occur until the boomers/Silents become a social minority, particularly in the ruling classes. (I’m also not going to say things will get better either once they pass.)
      All this is information that if not taken personally is helpful to all the generations..

      • Wiffle: “if the black knows his grandfather”

        That is an absolutely fascinating question.

        How many kneegr0w men know the full names of both their father & their father’s father?

        My guess would be that it’s very likely to be in the single digits, percentage wise.

    • Seriously, no one actually hates EVERYONE in a generation. But every generation has obnoxious ideological truth regimes (credit Academic Agent) and it is worthwhile to point those out so people can be engaged with in a productive manner. Like you just aren’t going to convince any olds that mustache man did nothing wrong because their identity is centered around WW2 America the good guys.

      • I don’t think the White race, in and of itself, ever really had “obnoxious ideological truth regimes”.

        “Obnoxious ideological truth regimes” are the hallmark of the Bronze Age Death Cult.

        What the White race didn’t realize [until relatively recently] was the capacity for mesmerizability & hypnotizability amongst a significant portion of the White race, when subjected to the cultural poisoning courtesy of the Bronze Age Death Cult.

    • Many of the generational political and other polls I review just happen to exclude GenX. They jump from Boomer to Millennial in their survey. I can appreciate that some in my generation, X, are somewhat annoyed by this phenomenon and similar ones.

      • They typically get shit on for being cynically uninvolved. Hipsterism too, although that may be more Xennial because i sure remember those assholes from college.

    • The downvotes are very telling. It is incredibly effeminate behavior and not at all surprising. Getting your back up because you take general observations personally is snowflake AF and Boomers and Zoomers seem to be the most susceptible. Oops! There I go generalizing again. Awaiting the glorious downvotes.

      My only schadenfreude is that the Boomers will be smothered to death during the day of the pillow when Shaneequa and Okimbe have finally had enough of their endless demands and whining. And the Zoomers will be a hated minority in their own country having helped to erect the prison and forge the chains that bind them that were enshrined by Boomers. I already see videos of Zoomers being savaged by blacks in Democrat run areas and it brings me some dark and grim joy. You voted for it, now enjoy the feral beasts you promoted.

      Xers and Millennials seem the least retarded probably because they both remember the tail end of what the “before times” were like so have some cynicism about it.

      • I see a lot of the “someday I’ll be dead then you’ll be sorry you were mean to me” type responses.

      • Children are ignorant retards with no life experience.

        Zoomers are children, children decide nothing they are just along for the ride. I don’t take joy.

        Take away your car and force you to live in a mandatory facility with apes and you will get beaten too, you wouldn’t be asked or allowed to call the apes apes either.

        You really should think a bit more before you speak.

    • Outstanding comment. I can get angry at the boomers. But then I remember that it isn’t all boomers. And that we are all entering dangerous territory. There are serious people who literally want a world without Whites. Stopping them supersedes everything else. Including your and everyone else’s feelings

    • Having read many of the commenters here and contrasted them with those of other forums… I don’t think that it is actually too big of a problem here. Most here to seem to have a reasoning ability within the top 10% of the general at least. Probably more like 5%

      Good book btw, you should write more of them 🙂

      • NeoSpartan: Thank you. I can definitely be overly loquacious, at times. Need to edit more before I hit post comment. And I shall assume that others, like you, understood my ‘book’ reference was to my prolixity (lovely word – you can tell I’m was an English major).

  9. Well said!

    Resentment is a self-perpetuating and worsening misery, indeed a psychological cancer, for whoever nurtures it – as well as being a sin.

    Because it is primarily self-harming, it does not matter who is being resented or whether they “deserve” it.

    (This is most obvious when the object of resentment is dead, or even imaginary!)

    As you imply: resentment is the territory of The Left: where would the Left be without class, sex, sexuality, national and race resentments?

    Adding generational resentment to the mix is Just More Leftism.

    • “ Resentment is a self-perpetuating and worsening misery, indeed a psychological cancer, for whoever nurtures it – as well as being a sin.”

      I get irritated when people pronounce moral judgments on emotions that are experienced throughout all of humanity to some degree.

      Yes, there are emotions that are far more susceptible to miss-use than others.

      However these emotions are present for some reason related to our survival and are not there because of “sinful nature”

      One could hypothesize that resentment protects the mind against the kind of stupid, naive, trusting, idealism that lead to our current state of affairs.

      People who are resented are never trusted again and the danger of a second betrayal is prevented.

    • Speaking in broad strokes, the Boomer generation as a whole does not know what’s like to despair. There are many other sins of that generation, but as whole it’s optimistic and carefree viewpoint on the future, richly reward from young adulthood, doesn’t even understand the emotion. Thus when confronted with angry voices sometime generations deep, there is simply confusion and distress.
      Envy/resentment, as you rightly point is a sin, and one that Boomers understand. But on the whole, I think the reasonable frustrations of following generations do not involve envy, but are coming out of something like despair. Despair is also a sin and one that deeply marks my generation. Whatever Gen X make to old age, we can wander around with “Survived my own suicidal impulses for decades” on our old fart T-shirts. Thus I think two closely spaced in time generations really not understanding each other.

      • …the Boomer generation as a whole does not know what’s like to despair…

        So that’s why the 75-84 age range has the second highest suicide rate of any 10 year age group, exceeded only by the 85+.

        I was wondering. A life with out despair. Makes sense.

  10. IMO, I see a lot of whining like you describe (not just in politics) a bit like the admission that you don’t have a solution. The same that our position on the right can’t just be an “anti” position. We must formulate, articulate, and execute a “pro” identity and strategy.

  11. I think it’s good that people are talking about Reagan and his amnesty. From what I remember Reagan was told his amnesty would only be for 300,000 illegal aliens. Also, his bill had enforcement provisions that would prevent future illegal immigration that were conveniently removed the day before the bill was passed. I have always wondered why no one has put together the names of the people responsible for removing the enforcement provisions from that legislation. Also, it would be convenient for people to know why the 300,000 illegal aliens turned into almost 3 million who got amnesty. This was because illegal aliens began gaming the system and created a backlog of hundreds of thousands of people and the immigration workers were told to process the illegal aliens even if they were lying or did not meet the prerequisites for amnesty the immigration workers were told amnesty would be a one-time thing in the future we would not have illegal immigration. More people need to know about the lies we were told about the 1986 amnesty and everybody needs to know and find out who was it that removed the enforcement provisions in that legislation. I’m not a big fan of Reagan but I do remember him saying that his amnesty was one of his worst mistakes

    • It’s baffling that to this day, Civnat G. Normiecon continues to believe it’s possible to negotiate with leftists as if they are good faith actors. Perhaps Reagan also should have known better.

      • Yes. The Reagan amnesty betrayal happened because the republicans believed that they were negotiating in good faith with people who wanted the same outcomes that they did, like two people arguing about the best route to drive to an agreed upon destination.

        While the amnesty betrayal is probably not the first example, it is a monumental example of republicans negotiating in naïve good faith with people who hate them and want to dispossess them.

        40 years later and most white republicans still don’t understand that they are on the losing end of a fight to the death.

        “My esteemed colleague from across the aisle…”

        • Exactly. I’ve given passes to those people in the past, but that was probably because I was not old enough or smart enough to understand that they “should have known better”! In any event, what’s done is done. I no longer give passes. Lucy and the football cartoons are only funny because Charley is so damn stupid.

          Anyone who doesn’t understand the stakes involved in the struggle deserves no forgiveness.

      • It’s hard to comprehend in 2024, but in the 1980s there were many Democrats who were modestly liberal in the sense of that time, but were not traitors hell bent on the destruction of America. Representative Mazolli, one of the authors of the 1986 bill, was one of them. These moderate Democrats were purged from the party beginning in the Clinton era, but it really kicked in during the Obama purges. There are no moderate Democrats left.

        It was not so much that the Act itself was flawed, but that the Democratic party undermined its enforcement provisions at every turn as the party veered leftward in the ’90s and thereafter. Reagan failed to foresee that the Democratic party would come under the influence of, and eventually be captured by, Marxists. Fault him for that if you want, but the truth is that nobody could foresee this at the time. Remember, this was a time when almost all union blue collar workers were hardcore Democrats, forming their core constituency. The notion that the Democratic party would throw their core constituency under the bus in favor of the rainbow coalition of freaks and losers was inconceivable.

        • “Reagan failed to foresee that the Democratic party would come under the influence of, and eventually be captured by, Marxists.”

          I simply cannot respect someone who thinks that we are battling Marxists.

          Dude, no one wants the proletariat to own the means of production.

          You are afraid to say ANTI-WHITE!

          • Line: A sure sign that the writer is over 50 is the incessant use of ‘marxists’ and ‘communists.’ It’s the old binary, ideological mindset. We now live in an age of racial identity, and they keep viewing it through an ideological lens.

            I may be old, but I’m not that stupid.

          • There is a part of Marx that’s still represented among today’s left/”left.” It showed most clearly in his support for the American civil war.

            He cheered it not because it would end slavery or establish a more communism-susceptible industrial mega-state, but because it would impoverish Southern white farm workers and small holders—not to awaken their consciousness and bring about a revolution, as he’d claim in other contexts, but just to injure and oppress them. He relished it almost sexually.

            There’s a very clear echo of that today in NATO fans’ rhetoric about Russians. Calling it “Marxism” is a bit obfuscatory.

          • Yep, Leftists are *not* Marxists. If they only were. Leftists are a very special type of evil. Anti-White just being at the top of the list. In there I might differ from LITS, but he comes from an atheistic perspective, I from the other camp. And yet, as he states, we both would be happy to “have each other’s backs.”

            We need a bit more of that philosophy in this group.

          • This was a notable tic among Brits during the Summer of Floyd and beyond. When discussing the ritual of taking a knee before a soccer match, those opposed were always very, very careful to say they opposed the “Marxist BLM organization” and that’s why they didn’t support taking a knee. It was almost impossible, even with the anonymity of the internet, to find someone saying, “I decry taking a knee because it’s an obvious gesture of white subservience to blacks.

          • This is more a response to 3g4me but since there’s no “reply” button for her post I’m doing it here.

            On the “Marxist” rhetoric – I think it’s more a case of Marxism having evolved into something that doesn’t look much like what it was in the 19th century or the Russian Revolution. The essence of the thing, though, is still redistribution of wealth and status. The old Marxism didn’t give much thought to non-Whites so it was class based. Multi-racial Marxism emphasizes racial disparities. The people embracing these ideas, then or now, always assume that *they* will get to be in charge of the redistribution process. This is why the typical early 20th century Marxist is a bourgeois living on an allowance from his parents and the typical race-Marx advocate today is a White or Jewish trust fund brat or upper-middle class White woman. It never occurs to these people that they themselves might end up in the cattle cars along with all the people they hate. There’s some mixture of narcissism and historical blindness about the real horrors of revolution that makes this possible.

          • You are mistaken because your thinking is one-dimensional. The anti-white bias of the Democratic party is a relatively new thing. The Clintons were not anti-white. They definitely were neo-Marxists.

            Marxism is, and has always been, about controlling the means of production in service of the party. In the early 1900s this was accomplished by explicitly taking over the factories, farms, etc. under force of arms. The fall of the Soviet Union demonstrated this technique had a limited shelf life.

            In the late 1900s and 2000s the means of production are controlled by controlling access to capital. In the Clinton era it was all about the environment and saving the world, which was not anti-white. By the end of the Clinton era, if you wanted access to capital then you damn well better have your corporate policies aligned with the regime’s policies on the environment and global poverty. And you had better be making generous charitable donations to environmental groups, much of which was recycled back to the Party as political donations.

            By 2020 if you wanted access to capital then you damn well better have your corporate policies aligned with the Democrats on ESG and DIE policies and be making generous donations to non-profits, which again will be recycled back to the party. Why do you think Disney keeps racing down the ESG and DIE path, even after admitting in their annual report that it is hurting their business? Why do you think Boeing is indifferent to their planes falling apart in mid-air? None of this matters as long as they toe the Democratic party line. The Democratic party controls the means of production by controlling access to capital, and the benefits of such control accrues to the service of the party.

            I can’t tell you what the next insane Current Thing will be advanced by the Democratic party, but I can guarantee you that the Fortune 500 will fall in line any absurdity to protect their access to capital.

          • Nice response, Guest. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and civility and will try to recirprocate.

            I’ll agree with you as far as I can. Before WW2, the democrats were ideologically committed to helping the little guy. You can call this “Marxism” if you want but I just see it as most of the people in the USA saying that they didn’t want to be serfs. I don’t mind if we see these things differently

            However, after WW2 things changed to anti-whiteness, and I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure why.

            I’ll agree with you that Clinton was a transitionary figure from “help the little white guy at the expense of big business” to “overthrow whitey.” As evidence of the transition to anti-whiteness, I offer Clinton’s speech at Portland State University in 1997 where he first declared that “diversity is our greatest strength.”

            I hope that we can agree that this was the first battle cry of anti-whiteness and it had little relationship to Marxism. (A year earlier, the SPLC had started using the slogan that “diversity is our strength.” Clinton revised it to “diversity is our GREATEST strength.”)

            After Clinton, there was no race-blind socialism, only anti-whiteness, and that is what we currently face. Not Marxism.

          • After Clinton, there was no race-blind socialism, only anti-whiteness, and that is what we currently face. Not Marxism.

            I upvoted your last response, @LitS, because you are spot on with everything except your very last sentence.

            As @Pozymandius explains, modern Marxism is not the Marxism of the late 19th century. The concept has evolved as classical Marxism was proven flawed. Modern Marxism is much closer to Mussolini’s definition of fascism, corporatism to use the closest translation to the term he used.

            If you hold current American society and Mussolini fascism up to the light, you won’t see much difference, apart from the lack of syndicalism.

        • People could and did forsee this at the time.

          Reagan won 49 states on the backs of patriotic white people. He was the implicit and explicit whote vote. He had no legitimate business offering ANY amnesty whatsoever anymore than trump had business taking advice from that big asset whore to do a platinum plan.

    • It turned into 3 million because the Democrats reneged on their half of the deal. Reagan later said this was the last time he ever trusted the Democrats.

      This should be a lesson to us. No matter what “good” provisions are in a Democrat-pushed bill, or in a bill that requires subsequent cooperation from Democrats, they will find a way to screw us with it.

      Now someone will whine about Trump’s DACA proposal, about how it would have legalized umpty-zillion illegals. Well, I read the thing, and…. it had very strict provisions. The prospective DACA recipient could not have so much as a parking ticket (I am not exaggerating), could not be on any sort of public assistance, etc. Basically it selected for the absolutely productive and upstanding types, and booted out all the criminals and deadbeats. THIS was why it got so much resistance. — Of course, getting Democrats to hold up their end would have been an entirely different question.

      • Democrats always renege on their side of a bargain. For another example, remember the 1990 budget deal, when George H.W. Bush (“Read my lips, no new taxes!”) agreed to raise taxes in return for spending cuts by the Democrats to balance the Federal budget. Bush raised taxes and the Democrats just kept right on spending anyway.

  12. Boomer hate is just a sign of how feminized the culture has become even among those who condemn the feminization. It is emotional without regard to overall facts and the Big picture. It is very personal.

    Women always need someone to blame for their problems. Since they want to speak to the powerful it is never the powerful they blame.

    My father lived through the Great Depression (when he was homeless) and WW2. He never whined about older generations or wanted his elders to die in spite of his having a hard youth and tough early middle age.

    Women whine

    • That is an astonishing point, and I think you are absolutely correct. Oh, people have always complained about “old fogeys” and “kids these days” but nothing like we hear today. Never did we wish them all dead, as I’ve seen repeatedly expressed in recent years.

      • There is a myth that the US was a whitetopia before boomers. Yes it was more white but life for most was harder than it is now. The 50s were an anomaly.

        Most boomers were working class, at least they grew up that way.

        I am curious to find out what what some laid off factory worker in Ohio who became a welder or truck driver should have done differently so younger people now can have better lives. Vote harder? Because we did know voting works.

        • Depends what you mean by “harder.” There’s little harder than having African apes crammed down your throat by every waking moment, and nobody had to deal with any of that before the late 60s at the earliest. In other words, cultural misery can be worse than economic misery, and I ought to know because I’ve experienced both.

          • “And what was that working class man supposed to have done about that?”

            Killed more hippies. As they went on to basically rule the world. The ones screeching the loudest about “Da Man” were the sons & daughters of “Da Man” the rich and privileged whose feet had never touched the earth and had never known a day of hard work in their lives.

            The useful idiot Zoomers screeching today and holding up BLM and LBGTQ signs are their children & grandchildren. Same sickness and myopia, different generation.

            The offspring of the working class man are now cored out husks. Meth and fentanyl zombies. So your progeny is destroyed. Had you crushed the hippies when they were young at least they did not have institutional power.

            Shoulda, coulda, woulda. No one had a crystal ball so I’m speaking partly in jest but the truth of the matter is had the 60s leftism been strangled in the crib, we’d be on a -very- different trajectory today. Most of the modern horrors can be traced back to then.

          • @Apex

            Q: …what some laid off factory worker in Ohio who became a welder or truck driver should have done differently…
            A: Killed more hippies.

            Dunno. What did the hippies ever do to me? It was the politicians and bureaucrats who listened to the idiots and put us where we are. Somewhere along the line, people got the idea hippies should be taken seriously instead of just “seen and not heard.” Reiner’s Meathead and Struther’s Gloria were and still are morons.

            I know I didn’t have any opinions worth considering back when I was in my early 20s. I know no one I knew had opinions worth considering. What evidence is there that anyone’s college years had any insight worth the name?

            Sometime we have to come to grips with the notion that the enemy are those who implemented and enforced those crappy policies. Either that or bitch endlessly about each other and die on our own respective hills. Or knees, as appropriate.

        • But they have been “voting harder” to this very day. Ironically the older they are the harder they vote. Sitting there watching (insert Fox News host) telling them what they want to hear. You condemn your own age group.

          Never say “my father went through WW2.” You didn’t. You don’t get good graces from having a father who had seen sh- t.

          • Aye. And that goes double to those who traffic in being the “descendant of concentration camp survivors”.

          • And triple for those who grew up in a house with two kitchens, and never knew where their next meal was coming from.

        • “ I am curious to find out what what some laid off factory worker in Ohio who became a welder or truck driver should have done differently so younger people now can have better lives.”

          For starters they could have avoided constantly counter-signaling people who advocated for more far-sweeping radical solutions.

          Your typical Joe Blow worker may not have much real power, but they mostly bought into the system and propagated the standard egalitarian cultural memes that got us here.

          Or do you believe that an individual member of a mob is blameless because he was just going along with the crowd instead of walking away?

  13. My parents are Boomers and they’re fine folks. So are my in-laws, who survived communism and a civil war in their country.

    I never lacked for food or love. My parents didn’t spare the rod when it came to disciplining my sister or I, but we always were loved. My Dad worked lots of overtime at the chemical plant to ensure we had the things we needed. We weren’t rich, but hell if my Dad would’ve let us suffer for the necessities of life. I never had a basketball game, be it in CYO, high school or college, that my parents (and grandparents) didn’t attend.

    They even flew to some awful places for games where our directional school team got our brains beaten in by juggernauts.

    I’m sure there are awful Boomers, but there are awful Gen X, Millenials, Zoomers, etc. Blaming a whole generation for the actions of a douchey few is just ridiculous and as Z has noted, other races don’t do this to each other.

    That’s why I’m not a fan of generational politics. That and I don’t believe in hindsight. Reagan and his people (probably some jerks in there) had no idea that their financial reforms would result in what we have now. When you make a decision, you only have the data at hand to give you counsel on it.

    We’ve got plenty of people to blame without resorting to generational politics. It’s a lazy crutch for some like Walsh.

    • One anecdote from the Reagan years says it all. Supposedly Reagan and the speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, would meet regularly in the Capital lounge to drink hard liquor and discuss political matters of interest. The discussion was less upon goals, that the path towards those goals.

      Those days are dead and gone with the decline of the White race and the emergence of a racially mixed populace. Now it a battle over the spoils of a once great country. No option but to win (or lose) remains.

      • Reagan keeps popping up in this topic. I don’t understand why. Politicians are merely the outcroppings of their eras. Reagan, in dogsh-t brown suit and corpse makeup was just a part of his era. An old man in a new world. Did he care about what the next 40 years would be like? He was already 75. Does Biden care about what 2075 will be like?

        • If you read or listen to his speeches, Reagan was very much fixated on the world he would leave behind. Watch his 1976 Republican Convention speech for a perfect example.

          And yes, he screwed up, with a lot of “help” from the left, the 1986 amnesty. But continually pointing that out is kind of the mirror image of the NAXALT or IKAGO arguments.

  14. Going completely against the thesis of today’s post I want to mention something I saw on the idiot box last night that was peak boomer: they were doing a news segment to try and warn the diaper-clad remainders of their rapidly expiring audience about romance scams on the internet machine their grandson Jimmy set up for them.

    So the human element they put in to make the story relatable is this dumb boomer that somehow manages to get suckered into sending 500k to a pajeet running a bitcoin scam pretending to be a young Chinese woman that messaged him on the facebooks. Just ignore the computer illiteracy for a minute, this is an ugly old man who was perfectly willing to believe that an attractive young woman would be interested in him to the point of engaging in financial dealings without having even met her in person. And of course he has a daughter who will get no inheritance now because mister ain’t no senator’s son bad moon rising midnight special still thinks he can roll in the mud with young ladies and is still 25 so long as he takes his boner pill, incontinence pill, blood pressure pill, prostate shrinking pill, and memory aid pill.

    Of course when his daughter then complains that she can’t afford a one bedroom house in a black ghetto that costs a million dollars its because she’s a lazy entitled millennial.

    • It’s called the hog butchering scam by the scammers. Speaking of food, the boomers are just the leading edge of the obesity epidemic in America. We’re all under threat from metabolic syndrome, either directly or indirectly from harm to family members. Big Ag and Big Pharma want you kept in the dark on this.

      • I mean even if it was a beautiful woman rubbing her giant tits in my face in person if she started asking me about an investment scheme that would be one hell of a red flag. Doing it for a couple pictures of a Chinese model is just straight up retarded.

        • This might be a bridge too far.

          I’ve seen this scam pulled on others of my generation. Folks, people get old, brains *decline*. Do you blame a Boomer when he trips and breaks his hip? Cognitive decline hits many of us and it’s scary, but the decline is often emotional, subtle, and judgmental—something along the line of a young child accepting candy from a stranger.

          Such con artists existed in the generations before Boomers and will after the Boomers are gone. Women fall for young (foreign) lovers professing their undying affections as well. Loneliness is a horror and drives people to do crazy things. It’s sad. Be thankful you’re still at an age and mental acuity where you can see the folly.

          • I should clarify that this guy was like in his 60s not poo pants age. He still should have been expected to know better.

          • @Ploppy, maybe. My IT guy tells me every couple days about one of the employees clicking on obvious phishing scams. Do boomers do it more often? Not that I can tell. If anything, my Xer employees are the more gullible. Maybe from being raised in a world where people were still expected to be “nice”, before “nice” meant likely sex predator.

    • Mr. “Bad Moon Rising” would probably have willed his property to some Sierra Club affiliated open spaces non-profit because 20 years ago his kids popped his narcissist bubble and he’s still upset.

  15. Time flies. It’s already Feb. 2024 (where did January go?). In a mere 15 years, there will be very few living boomers. Will we still be blaming them, or have moved on to blaming somebody else? Maybe boomers are the easy target precisely because they are perceived as white (and male, half of them). People have to blame somebody. The need to feel superior to someone being part of human nature. So you blame the people who it costs the least to blame. The people it is fashionable to blame. Since blaming the real culprits, or any other culprits, comes with higher costs.

    However, in this case, the blaming we are talking about is an expression of AINO’s acceptance of collapse. Everybody, even the normies, agrees that it is collapsing. And doing the forensics, one can see that the collapse was in motion before the boomers even started college. The death of noblesse oblige, an early collapse indicator, being plainly evident by the 1960s. As opposed to a late collapse indicator, such as the mere existence of a thing like OnlyFans. Picking out collapse indicators is a little hobby of mine nowadays. Around the time noblesse oblige went out of style, anyone who tried something like OnlyFans would have been imprisoned. Getting back to boomers, they lived to see that transition. It’s hard to come up with another generation that has seen so much collapse in their lifetime. Whether or not they were the cause of it.

    • The collapse started at Gettysburg and in recent years has increased exponentially. This has been a long time in the making.

      • I look at collapse as more of a moral process that eventually manifests itself statutorily, rather than the other way around. So I have a hard time ascribing collapse to any one event, such as Gettysburg or the Civil War. Rather that the collapse already happened prior to the event, and manifests itself through it.

        • I will stick with Gettysburg because it was the first and eventually the fatal attack on the white majority. My morality is who/whom and that was a strike on my side of the ledger.

      • I think well before that, but that was the first large-scale event on this soil of brother killing brother, which is a big-time sign of collapse in progress.

        Another sign is that just before the rats all escape the sinking ship, they loot the place. I do not believe it coincidence that once freed from the more rights-based Democrats, the Republicans tried to loot all they could with greenbacks and income tax. Same thing 50 years later, with looting the continent just before entering into a war of cousin killing cousin.

        • The looting has accelerated to unprecedented levels now, which is a hallmark of an end stage empire.

    • Every generation has their role to play in the collapse, the millennials will be remembered for woke sanctimony as the boomer are remembered for neoliberal egoism.

      • It is a shame I won’t be around to see future generations judge millenials and gen z as harshly as they have judged their forebearers

        • Nah. Jeffrey, you’re just saying that. Your postings indicate differently. Schadenfreude isn’t your thing.

    • The Civil Rights Act was ’63, ’64. Everybody’s a Protected Class except white males. Immigration Act, ’64, ’65. The Booms were in grade school.

      New Amerika was in the works long before the Booms. They were the first mass-com and mass-programmed generation. They saw the fruit ripen, and the fruit rotten.

        • The Jeffersonian Republic never survived Jefferson. The French cheap real estate sale totally changed the role of the Federal Govt. and the goals of its politicians.

      • “They saw the fruit ripen, and the fruit rotten.” That’s true. My fellow boomer, best friend and I often remarked how other generations will never know what they’ve lost because they never knew what we had. Also, it seems to me that being aware of and grateful for the advantages we boomers had, might provide some small amount of grace against the onslaught by the subsequent generations. No matter how it’s presented, I’ve always seen the inter-generational attacks as both whining and irrelevant complaining, Both of which I cant’ abide.

    • Over half of Boomers are/were run-of-the-mill conservatives. Such people are/were naive and a bit obtuse, but there were not malicious and pernicious. Those descriptors belong to the hippy cohort of the Boomers and the felonious postmodern Frenchmen who poisoned their minds.

    • “ It’s hard to come up with another generation that has seen so much collapse in their lifetime. Whether or not they were the cause of it.”

      As an X-er growing up in the 80s and 90s, I had to constantly listen to the Boomers talk “their generation”.

      They had that stinking anthem about it by “The Who”. I wanna puke every time I hear that song.

      If the boomers don’t like generational warfare, its because the weapon they invented has been turned on them in their old age

      • Well I’m a boomer and well remember listening to my father starting whines with “The trouble with your generation is…”.
        Think again.

    • >>The need to feel superior to someone being part of human nature. So you blame the people who it costs the least to blame.

      This is psychologizing. You purport to understand the reasons why one might attempt to find a cause behind an historical effort, and those reasons are, in your book, most likely emotional ones. Feelings.

      How do you know that? Moreover, why assert it? The reason one would engage in this sophistry is to rule out a response from your interlocutor or target. Well, if it’s just muh feelings and need to feel good about myself, then there can’t possibly be a rational case behind my assertion. No, it’s just envy, malice, etc., etc. This neatly ends the discussion with a gavel slam.

      I find this sort of thing not only sophistic, but womanly. There are historical actors, there are generational attitudes and behaviors, and they can be demonstrated and proven. There need be no emotion behind speaking of such things at all. You cannot know, and yet you claim to know. On what basis? Intuition, I suppose, on a grand scale, such that one can read the minds of others at a distance and discern, like Freud, subconscious motives that rule out any appeal to data or facts tout court.

      • You’re right, I do assign shallow dime store psychology type motives to something as shallow and puerile as boomer blaming

    • Jeffrey Zoar: “In a mere 15 years, there will be very few living boomers.”

      I dunno about that.

      2024 + 15 = 2039.

      First year boomers born 1946

      Final year boomers born 1964

      2039 – 1946 = 93 years old

      2039 – 1964 = 75 years old

      There’s still gonna be a ton of 75+ y.o. boomers in 2039.

      As things stand right now, we still have a SILENT as President, and a SILENT as President pro tempore of the Senate.

      The youngest of the Silents [born 1945] are only 2024 − 1945 = 79 years old.

      Tom Selleck is a Silent, born in 1945, and apparently he’s still associated with the “Blue Bloods” talmudvision series.

      There’s a lot of old growth trees which are gonna be casting shadows on the GenX/Millennial/Zoomer saplings for the foreseeable future.


  16. The problem with criticizing those who blame the Boomers is that it was the Boomers themselves who introduced generational politics — “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.” The radical Cultural Revolution fomented by Boomers in the Sixties made everything political. Wasn’t that the slogan during the Clinton years — “the personal is the political”?

    Feminism, homosexuality, abortion, weed, race — it’s all political now, everything’s a political movement. You can’t just take a black or a woman or a queer as an individual any more on his or her own merits and demerits any more, it’s all part of a political agenda.

    Generations who have followed the Boomers are necessarily sucked into this, even if only in reaction. The Boomers were such a large cultural force that, like the bull in the china shop, they were blissfully unaware that anything they ever did might be construed as harmful by others. If you are an Xer or a Zoomer today and you say to yourself “Wow, wouldn’t it be great if we could deport illegals like Eisenhower did, own simple, cheap cars like a ’57 BelAir, have freedom of association without affirmative action, and not constantly have race and feminism shoved down our throats” you necessarily have to look at the pre-Sixties, pre-Boomer Era, and there’s no getting around that.

    Certainly not all Boomers were part of the Cultural Revolution, but the Cultural Revolution nonetheless was absolutely the work of Boomers.

    • As I always say: it’s not as if behavioral genetics took a break. Just take a look at their parents who continued to vote Dem based on decades old FDR nostalgia (that was, itself, pretty phony baloney).

      The only criticism that feel is slightly justified is that time, the only differentiator, has imparted zero wisdom even though the time frame they’ve experienced should have imparted a lot.

      • You could say the same of Civnat G. Normiecon and his Reagan nostalgia. Not that he had a better choice when it came to voting.

        • XMan: ” it was the Boomers themselves who introduced generational politics — “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.””

          I guaran-damn-tee you that that slogan was NOT coined by any White Christian boomers.

          That slogan was created deep in the bowels of the Frankfurt School, by the very shrewdest & most learned behavioral psychologists on the payroll of the Council of the Sanhedrin.

          Almost none of our “known” history is what it appears to be.

          Almost all of it is a (((mirage))).

    • … it was the Boomers themselves who introduced generational politics — “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.”

      Actually, it wasn’t. Jack Weinberg (a guy with an amazingly big nose) said it was a popular saying in the movement by ’64, when the oldest of boomers would just be hitting 18, and the youngest not yet born.

      But don’t let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

      • Yeah, I get it. Weinberg wasn’t a Boomer — but only by a couple of years. Neither was John Lennon or Allen Ginsberg or William Burroughs or Timothy Leary or Betty Friedan or Martin Luther King.

        But you’re just being pedantic here. The Boomers mainstreamed all the radical shit. They were the targeted audience, and they accepted it, lived by it, promulgated it and institutionalized it. They did see themselves as having moral superiority, as being sui generis and changing the culture.

        Frankly the Obama slogan “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” would have been perfect for the Boomers.

        Look, as I said, I am not indicting every Boomer, and I am not necessarily endorsing generational politics, all I am saying is that the Boomers were a highly politicized cultural and demographic force, and those of us who came later are necessarily forced to react to that fait accompli.

        • Six years, a good third of the cohort, but who is counting?

          The Boomers, to the extent there was a coherent culture, might have best been manifested by “That ’70s Show”, supposedly set ’76-’79, where dad was unemployed. The high school kids there are just a bit older than the midpoint of the Boomer generation, birth year ’52 or so.

          So how many of whatever generation you are a part of can say that dear old dad was unemployed for the better part of your high school years? The non-black part of your generation, I mean.

        • XMan: “Frankly the Obama slogan “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” would have been perfect for the Boomers.”

          The Boomers were born from 1946 to 1964; the bookends are the Japanese Surrender [1945] up to Griswold -v- Connecticut [1965].

          Obama was born in 1961, four years before Griswold, so he’s solidly a Boomer.


          PS: It is very very difficult to overemphasize the harm which Griswold did to the White Race.

          Amongst many other things, it put an immediate end to the White Baby Bomb.


          Which arguably is precisely why the Griswold Psy-Op was green-lighted in the first place.

          White Genocide.

  17. I think there is a larger point not discussed about the “crying girl” video:

    Why did she make a video of herself crying and post it to the world? Her specific troubles around money, work, becoming an adult, etc are typical.

    But she chose to share her weaknesses and vulnerability with the entire world while knowing the potential consequences.

    Has our society fallen so far that she (and her generation) believe that they must cope in public? Are their interpersonal bonds so weak that they must beg for sympathy from strangers?

    That’s why I didn’t laugh at the video. I found it pathetic and it just made me pity her.

    • It is a basic part of female nature to cry to men for help. If a man has a broken sink faucet, he fixes it. A woman with a broken faucet informs a man of the problem and the man fixes it.

      This is how women get problems fixed. Unfortunately this girl will continue voting Democrat, so it’s akin to asking a man to fix her faucet and then hiding his tools, or calling the police to bar him from entering her apartment to fix the faucet.

      • Expanding on the corollary you state. What this young woman actually needs to do is to put her energy into is finding the Lord and then finding a good man and building a life with him.

        She is, like many young women trying to fight nature and engage in the BS feminist narrative she has been propagandized with she she was born. I feel very sad for her.

    • “Has our society fallen so far that she (and her generation) believe that they must cope in public? Are their interpersonal bonds so weak that they must beg for sympathy from strangers?”

      Yes and yes. This is what an atomized society looks like. The digitalized Oprah Show simply makes it more obvious.

    • Well, good questions. The younger generation is like that, I guess.

      But the real question is: what do you think we, as a society, owe this young woman? Conservative boomers all say: “Not one damn thing.” Liberal boomers all say: “Lots more abortions.”

    • “Has our society fallen so far that she (and her generation) believe that they must cope in public?”

      In a word, yes. It’s just one of the many pathologies that typify our morally dystopian age.

      • Staking one’s claim to victimhood; it’s a case of “monkey see, monkee do”.

        Today’s strivers, strive to secure a higher place in the victimhood hierarchy, ’cause lying on the floor weeping is more efficient than ever before in achieving that access.

        I’m not heartless, but this sort of maudlin simpering fails to impress favorably.

  18. “ The reason to care about the past is to understand how you reached the present and to have some sense of what comes next. Understanding the politics around the Reagan era immigration policies is about understanding the nature of the people behind the just proposed immigration reform bill in the senate.”

    Exactly. Having lived through the Reagan era—albeit too young to fully understand it at the time—I can attest to Z-man’s analysis.

    A couple of major lessons taught by the Reagan/Bush era: One—immigration. Reagan *compromised* and allowed a smallish amount of IA’s to stay—about 7M (7M is about what we are now experiencing *yearly*). This was in exchange for the promise that immigration laws would be reworked into something sensible for the future. This was a lie as Congress reneged. Two—taxes and deficit spending. A “new” budget was crafted where the increase in social spending (more or less) increased with the future promise of reduction in spending $2 to $1 and therefore the promise of a balanced budget in 10 years. This of course never happened and deficient spending boomed.

    The lesson here to be learned was that the opposition lies and no deals can be made which requires one party to show “good faith” by contributing to their part of the bargain first. Seems we’ve not completely learned that lesson in all political bargains to this day, but we’re getting there with some in Congress. The opposition is not a faction that can be cooperated with as in compromise, it is an (political) enemy that must first be destroyed.

    • Or, the other lesson to learn is that both parties are in on it. That is the more bitter red pill to swallow.

  19. “The boomers are bad people for having enjoyed a good stock market and low interest rates over the last forty years.” –That’s not it at all. It’s that they don’t understand that they were riding a wave of leverage that began in 1983 and never looked back. They think they’re brilliant boot-strappers. I see this in my own family, with neighbors, etc. They look at the younger generations and say “What’s his problem anyway? What’s her problem? You’ve gotta hustle out there. Do ALL boomers believe this? Of course not. The smart ones peer out their plantation shutters and say “wow, I really dodged a bullet out there.”

    The reason that generational politics have exploded is because the PONZI Economy wen’t into reverse circa 2001, and anyone who didn’t get their cut of the loot by then did indeed have it harder. This was compounded in 2008, with the massive financial bailouts that sealed the economic doom of vast swaths of young people as open immigration depressed wages.

    These same young people watch boomers in the workplace, and then make memes saying “wow, he makes three times more and can’t even flip a powerpoint.” These memes are funny because they’re true.

    Also, this doesn’t negatively affect dissident politics because at this point there are no dissident politics. They will emerge, and they will emerge among the young not the old, who will be in hospice when they finally do emerge. In hospice, drugged out, and dying just like the country that leveraged up during their prime years. .

    And I don’t want to hear about “back people don’t do this.” Black people don’t matter. Black man never knew his grandpa who was capped on a street corner in 2002. Every generation of blacks has lived like and been n -words, and don’t see long term pattern recognition anyway, which is what generational politics sort of is.

    • I can’t paint all Boomers with that wide a brush as I’ve said repeatedly here. It is a fallacy to take those Boomers in the top quintile of economic prosperity and equate them to *all* Boomers (77M). Indeed most Boomers are suffering as they head into retirement as are Millennials and Zoomers as they attempt to make their way in the current economy. The younger cohorts have one advantage, youth and the potential to survive downturns. The Boomer generation is about to get screwed big time as the economy collapses.

      That there is a segment of Boomers who think and talk like you describe, I do not doubt. However, I maintain it is a stereotype not indicative of the majority. I don’t run into them. But when I do, I’m happy to relate my life history from youth to adulthood to illustrate “then” and “now”. It is much more difficult to obtain a top tier lifestyle than ever.

      I would also add that the racial mixture of the newer cohorts is also a contributing factor (but most folk are not up to such discussion). Boomers were a predominately a “White” cohort and came of age before a decline in IQ and decline in basic education in public schools, hence the newer cohorts have declined in basic ability to achieve in this new and more difficult economic environment.

      • I agree that the boomers will come out in the worst shape by far over the next five years. I disagree in that I see a group of people who have no idea how fortunate they were.

        My biggest issue is a pervasive shoulder-chip among the older crowd. I’ve never seen so many old people root against their own progeny as they spew “suck it up buttercup.” As if they themselves were these hardened empire builders. The truth is, the most defining feature of our togetherness as whites, spanning from the oldest to the youngest is our softness.

    • Thinking that the inability to “flip a PowerPoint” is a meaningful skill deficit is the true onanism. If you’re paid to prepare PP decks for your lazy boss and his or her peers to brief their even-higher-ups, then you’ll think that adds value. It’s the same bullshit that believes tweeting on X is activist journalism. Or that choosing the color of the quarterly TPS report is significant to the organization’s operations.
      As Upton Sinclair observed long before any Boomer existed, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
      So, instead of blaming intergenerational sniping for the decline of effective political activism, place the blame squarely where it belongs: either cognitive bias or stupidity.

  20. I agree with Zman that arguing generational politics is a pointless endeavor, and will add my own position that generational beliefs are baked in and impossible to change with words.

    Example: Imagine if the Boomer God-Emperor Trump proposed a 1% reduction in Social Security benefits. Even the Boomer with three MAGA flags on his golf cart would turn on him immediately.

    But, Gen Xers like me (and most of this group) should be aware of our own negative generational traits. Specifically, the pathological cynicism regarding ANY kind of organization, which let those dopes keep their hands on controls for so long.

    I see no remedies to these negative generational traits, so I believe arguing about them is at best pointless and at worst counterproductive.

    • Ironically, the later Boomers were the first subjected to Social Security cuts. It happened while Reagan was president and they were too young to vote. IIRC, the full benefit age was increased by almost three years. This will happen again. As I pointed out earlier, the biggest problem with the Boomer bashing is the retarded innumeracy of quite a bit of it, which diminishes the valid points.

      • Don’t forget, under Reagan SSI was “fixed”. That is to say, the retirement age was moved higher to match longevity and the “trust” fund regulated such that when exhausted, the SSI payments automatically reduced to match income.

        We now look to a 25% across the board cut in the next 5-8 years or so. This of course was not expected to happen since Congress was expected to revisit SSI and boost retirement age and or SSI taxes in the early 2000’s. Of course Congress would do no such thing since making the right decisions require people of integrity.

        • Social Security is about the last federal program that benefits whites more than any other ethnic group, so it will be cut with impunity in the near future. It really isn’t more complicated. Some time when the youngest X’ers/oldest Millennials are eligible the demographic mark will be hit and it will be eliminated.

          • I get where you are coming from, but don’t believe it can be eliminated *without a replacement*. Perhaps UBI or some such. The reason is simple, without some form of retirement income some folks will starve (regardless of race as is the nature of people not to plan ahead) in the streets. The elites won’t allow that as this produces a riotous populace.

          • I’d be surprised if it is ever eliminated. But the eligibility age (medicare too) will keep on getting raised as necessary.

    • No. We do it because the friend/enemy distinction is useful. Nobody here would suggest that the White family with a “In This House We Believe,” poster in the yard is anything except an enemy. The boomer is an enemy, though he is White.

      We shouldn’t waste time obsessing over it, but it’s useful to explain what they stand for and why dissident politics finds them so odious.

      • The Leftist Boomer is an enemy. The conservative Boomer is a dead weight who has the potential to be a friend.

  21. The weakness in the friend/enemy dichotomy lies in the conviction that the distinction is cast in stone. The evolution of the identities poses a problem for the fixed friend/enemy mindset. When white identitarians find that a growing number of non-whites and Jews echo their sentiments and grievances and can be political allies, it’s tempting to feel, “We’ll ally with them ’til together we win, then we’ll cast them out.” As though these allies couldn’t detect the attitude.

    This prejudice, too, is a type of political onanism and it’s why Black America, as currently constituted, is cruising for a great fall. Beware of their example.

    • I am not sure that for Schmitt it is set in stone. Remember, this is not a personal enemy, this is an enemy of a particular collectivity, and is readily identifiable. The grey areas, he admits, are grey, and I do not believe he spends much time writing about temporary alliances with other enemies, etc. I believe he is writing about the exigent, obvious cases of enemies confronting one — in other words, you know ’em when you see ’em. That’s sufficient for me as a criterion.

      1) “The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible.”

      2) “The enemy is not merely any competitor or just any partner of a conflict in general. He is also not the private adversary whom one hates. An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. The enemy is solely the public enemy because everything that has a relationship to such a collectivity of men, particularly to a whole nation, becomes public by virtue of such a relationship.”

    • imbroglio: I can understand being ‘for’ one’s own people, but when you continue to view every issue facing White America through the lens of anti-semitism, you are not helping your cause. Just as Compsci noted about the danger of making political deals with an opposition who never show good faith, most dissidents are rightfully highly skeptical of any alliance – temporary or long term – with a people who have shown themselves to be inimical to White peoplehood.

      For you to ‘warn’ us that not welcoming some supposed groundswell of non-White allies will result in some sort of dangerous blowback is . . . . highly ironic.

  22. “Recently, a young girl posted a video of herself crying about having to work forty hours a week and still not having money to live like she did in college so Matt Walsh made sport of her.”

    If Walsh wasn’t a grifter and gatekeeper he would have told her to get married and raise children instead of the low wage rat race.

    It is telling of our time that when a bunch of young to middle age men see a young woman crying about the stress of her wage slavery and think the best thing to do is to make fun of her. If he really had to make fun of her, he could have said “Welcome to equality honey!”

    • American politics is about doing gratuitous injury to the already fatally injured.

      It’s right-wing to mock white people for both personal and collective failure to have overcome an unprecedentedly totalized proto-genocidal race terror waged from both above and below.

      It’s left-wing to use the word “chud” while doing it.

  23. Salutary observations from Z, but I would take them even a step further. Hence, white cannibalization is not merely generational but civilizational. Many dissidents, in their thunderous perorations, wind up denouncing practically the whole of white civilization, and in doing so, sound rather like postmodern Leftists. Yes, we can descry certain aspects of Christianity, for instance, that have conduced to our lamentable pass, but to condemn Christendom is to virtually reject white civilization. The two are not coterminous, of course, but the overlap is huge. And if you denounce, practically in toto what you claim to revere, what is the point of the reverence? Being an activist on behalf of something you despise, in the main, makes no sense.

  24. Carl Schmitt, that Nazi. Why a lead-off quote by someone from that despicable party? Undermines whatever comes next.
    Repeat after me, there are no good Nazis.

  25. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Political Onanism

  26. I think the main complaint with boomers is that they are out of touch with today’s reality for young people and that their advice tends to be seen as useless.

    That being said, I agree that generational warfare is counterproductive. We need to focus on the real enemies that have been at war with us for many generations.

    • They don’t help. They mock. They scorn. They laugh. They never speak of any obligation to those after them. They were able to live Woodstock for 50 years, even those of them who despised it. They benefited from the loosening of moral strictures in the late 60s onward that — for a short while, like bank robbers giving a cut to their family and friends — permitted the creation of new wealth from unproductive and illusory labor, such as the service industry. Meanwhile, what was sold off were, essentially, the family heirlooms that previous generations had built from the 1620s onward in this country. And then they will die, leaving nothing behind, like locusts.

      Sure, it might be a useless expenditure of energy, but at this point, the damage is so extensive that it will take a multi-generational effort to right the ship — and that’s not going to happen now that the US has tens of billions of “migrants” circulating through our institutions to gum up any effort to return to sanity. Schools in the northeast have Spanish kids walking into superintendents’ offices every day, illiterate, unfed, and looking for something. The shelves are being cleared at the very moment when we need them full. It is hard not to be angry.

      • Did you actually read all the way through the post or did you just trigger out seeing the word, “boomer”?

        • Yes, I did. What part of it do you think I missed? Would you care to elaborate, or just fire off-liners as if you’ve demonstrated something?

          I state flat-out it’s unproductive. I also conclude by asking what, at this point, can be done, given that the house is sold off and we’ll be evicted once mom and dad die. Can we undo what’s been done?

          Maybe you reach a point where the mass of the car tips to such a point it is physically impossible to stop it from falling off the cliff. Maybe we’re there. Maybe smart guys like yourself should come up with some solutions if you think reading through blog posts is going to do much, either. Drop a line when you do.

          • I did. I have started several of my own businesses, and moved my family away from the centers of cultural rot. I homeschooled my kids by putting them in a conference room behind my office and was available any time they needed help. Their mom would do whatever it is she did to keep the house nice and get supper ready, then she would do her community stuff and church lady stuff until she picked up the kids in early afternoon.

            I’m pretty sure it can still be done. I know lots of young guys who did it.

            Like has been said so many times, boomers are not your enemy. Even those who foolishly voted for the commies of either party aren’t really your enemy. No, not even the spiteful mutants — they hold no power. Your enemy are the small handful who actually implement these policies, from the county commission who decided to lock down “their” countries all the way up to globalist organizations.

            Until you figure out who the real enemy is, you have no hope of a solution.

          • Yeah Arthur, just start your own business. Its not at all like picking yourself up by your bootstraps, its totally different.

          • @Valley Lurker, are you saying people born from around ’65 and on are incapable of running a business, or simply unwilling? What happened about then that produced the change? Fluoride was in the water long before that.

          • @Steve My only interest in hearing from you is to point out Arthur responded with this statement “They don’t help. They mock. They scorn. They laugh. They never speak of any obligation to those after them.” and you proceeded to live up to his expectations perfectly.

          • @Valley Lurker, he asked if I had any solutions. I proposed one that I know from personal experience worked as recently as a decade ago, and, from some of my business associates prove, still works.

            Sure, almost no one will get rich at it, but earn enough to buy the house with the white picket fence and the stay-at-home mom?


          • @ Steve “Did you actually read all the way through the post or did you just trigger out seeing the word, “boomer”?”

            No, you didn’t. This was your initial response, which proves his point.

          • @Valley Lurker, reread the last couple paragraphs of Zman’s essay. That’s why I asked whether he read the whole thing or just triggered out. And, I’m guessing, you ,too?

          • “They don’t help. They mock. They scorn. They laugh.” Oh, you meant them. Glad it’s not you. Your kind of bitterness is unnecessary static. Sounds like whining bitterness. Let’s not share a foxhole any time soon.

      • The Boomers didn’t do most of the damage. It was done before they were in charge of anything.

        The real problem with the Boomers is they broke the social contract. Their (and Gen-X) failure to have children is the main reason all of our societies have opened up to the dregs of the 3rd world.

        But who did this to them? This is the question that is almost never asked. How did a generation grow up so hedonistic and self-centered? Everyone blames the Boomers because they are still alive.

        • Tars –

          “Their (and Gen-X) failure to have children is the main reason all of our societies have opened up to the dregs of the 3rd world.”

          The real reason is Chapaquiddick Ted’s 1965 “immigration” bill. Prior to that – going back to Calvin Coolidge – immigration was practically non-existent. Coolidge slammed the door to let all those who came in latter part of 1800’s/early 1900’s assimilate which they did (they don’t now). When there was immigration we got the best of the best: physicists, scientists, doctors, etc. Post 1965 we’ve been getting riff-raff; practically illiterate, no/low skilled people who’s only use is to pull the Democrat lever. That’s all by design of course & blame lies squarely on the stupid Republican Party for not putting an end to it.

          They’re bastard scum.

          • That was Manny Cellar’s bill. New York Jewish Old World fella. He had tried mightily to stop the 1923 immigration act, but failed.

            He then spent the next four decades being re-elected to Congress, waiting to undo it. He and Phil Hart (WW2 vet) teamed up, and most Republicans (Dirksen in particular) helped push it through the Senate. Kennedy was just a junior senator at that point.

            Cellar was then permitted to remain in Congress into his 90s as a reward, before Liz Holtzmann took him out in 1974 after Watergate.

            It was mainly, if one wants to get picky about it, the pre-WW2 generation and some of the younger vets who did this. If you look at the 1965 signing with LBJ, the Congressmen there were mostly born in the 1890s, 1900s, and 1910s.

          • While what you say is true, it ignores social security. As far back as 1981, demographers saw the problems of SS in the future. The worker to retiree ratio was going to be too low. Since Europe has the same problem, we can’t import Europeans to work and pay the taxes.

            Now, this whole stupid plan cannot work and will not work. For one, the foreigners don’t want to support the Boomers. But for two, only White people and Asians are net tax payers. So we’re destroying the country for nothing.

          • “ If it only goes back to ’81, why did the rate increases start in 1950?”

            That was the time we started to draw down on SSI from initial statute and life increases began to be noticed among the populace.

          • Right, @Compsci, that was when it became clear to anyone with a grasp of basic arithmetic. But those with actuarial experience, and, most importantly at that point in time, access to the numbers, saw the problem coming decades ahead of time. The first cartoon (meme) where I recall the populace starting to get concerned was about the time the Concorde came on-line, early 70s, I think.

            Something like,
            Q: What soars higher and faster than anything in the past, and is abbreviated SST?
            A: Social Security Taxes.

            (Maybe a dated reference. Concorde=SuperSonic Transport)

  27. Being bitter that boomers had better economic conditions is silly but Reagan & his fanatic worshippers, as well as feminists for that matter, do deserve criticism. As for Walsh & Fuentes they’re certainly not helping things but it’s not like anything positive would happen if everyone became united tomorrow. We have no party & no political leader to rally behind, if such a thing existed much of this factionalism wouldn’t be happening.

    It’s now implicitly understood that the ruling class will never allow anyone to actually challenge them as long as the lights are on & the vast majority of people on the Right aren’t at all serious about changing the status quo so chasing ecstasy while everything collapses is irresistible to most people. When the political climate changes this behavior will organically come to an end out of necessity, till then people are going to pass the time with cheap thrills because they have nothing else to do in clownworld.

    • Parties are for electoral politics and we are in a post-electoral environment. As for political leaders, well, we’re unlikely to have any until we unite, and inter-generational bickering certainly doesn’t encourage unity.

      • “we’re unlikely to have any until we unite”

        The vast majority of the Right has been united in not wanting open borders, tranny indoctrination & endless neocon wars Trump took office & yet the same backstabbers keep getting elected & the rot continues unabated. Meanwhile anytime the micro minority of dissident White people get together to do anything beyond hold conferences the feds inevitably get involved to drop the hammer on them.

        As for the the hand wringing over people being hostile towards Reagan worshipping boomers & feminists I don’t see that coming to an end so long as those groups continue to implicitly & explicitly support the status quo. Complaining about this behavior seems like yet another form of pissing in the wind to pass the time but with a toxically positive slant to it.

        • Depends upon what you mean by the Right. Until about the last 20 years, the only real Right in this country was Buckleyite conservatives, and they were at best ambivalent about rampant immigration, and were the most rabid supporters of the neocon wars. But, with the advent of the DR, the BuckleyCons are no longer the Right; they are clearly the handmaidens of the Left. We’re the Right, now. And when I speak of unity I speak of unity in the DR ranks.

          • Spot on. People either don’t know or don’t care about the ruthless efforts to stamp out the Right, Buchanan being just one example. For all his failings, Trump was the first to make it through that blockade. Reagan really was in spirit a Lefty and but/for the Cold War his many failings would far outnumber any successes.

          • “We’re the Right, now. And when I speak of unity I speak of unity in the DR ranks”

            Unified or not the DR is effectively irrelevant in affecting anything until such time it’s allowed to have real influence over society which won’t happen as long as the usual suspects have an ironclad grip over the levers of power. Until then it can only spread awareness about what’s coming & critique the system, which it’s currently doing.

            The DR was very unified right up until charlottesville which not coincidentally was when everyone believed Trump was a real leader of the movement. Infighting is just a symptom of lack of hierarchal structure which is deliberately & perpetually destroyed by the ruling class with the consent of the majority.

            I mention conservatives generally because that was part of the subject matter of the article ala Reagan defenders. I also mentioned them because it further demonstrates my point. Conservatives are far more numerous & share many of the same hostilities & yet just like the DR they’re powerless to change anything all the same.

            Implying that some feel good plan about uniting with an enemy demographic like feminists & people who defend a guy who turned California blue will solve anything comes off as a patronizing the same way conservative hailing blacks as natural conservatives does.

            One can be critical of Reagan & his defenders without also being envious of the economic conditions boomers lived under & one can also be critical of feminism without blindly hating women.

  28. I don’t think Reagan or hus supporters were evil, or that his administration was all bad. My criticism is aimed at unfortunate talking points thar have cost conservatives greatly. One of these is the idea that government is always bad. The government is not an evil entity, but an organization made up of people. If those people are on your side, government power can be used to advance your causes. Unfortunately, too many conservatives cringe when people on the Right wish to use their government power. They will argue over the most mundane aspects, and end up sabotaging themselves in the process.

    • The truth is far from a libertarian’s idea of paradise..We need to seize the Federal government, and our State governments, and legislate or dictate an immediate end to the destruction of our society, on all fronts…With women voting, this is very difficult to do, maybe impossible, since they will be obsessing about the poor immigrants even as the lights go out and our kids are left without anything—but it has to be done, ultimately outside the electoral process most likely…

    • From a Christ-based point of view, government is always evil. Establishment Xianity long ago came to be partners with it, but there’s a reason that Jesus was tempted when Satan offered him the kingdoms of the world.

    • Indeed. The libertarian taint on the Right has needs be cleansed away at some point. And while we’re about it, so does the unthinking worship of the free market.

      • I forget who said it, but paraphrasing, “the free market has an iron-clad alibi — it wasn’t anywhere around the scene.”

        But for argument’s sake, what would you suggest in its stead?

        • I favor fairly heavily regulated capitalism. Not so much in the form of taxation, but in the form of various regulatory mechanisms to rein in corporate pillaging and cultural destruction. In short, my ideal society is one that places considerably more emphasis on culture than economics. And if we have to make do with Chevys rather than Mercedes (admittedly a facile synechdoche) in order to nurture a beautiful culture, so be it.

          • Regulation is taxation, but they take the payment in the form of paperwork instead of cash. But I take your point.

            Problem is we’ve been there, done that. Maybe there’s some way to avoid putting micro-tyrants into the job of regulator, but mankind has not stumbled across it yet.

          • Oh, if you mean outlawing the corporate form, hey, I’m 4-square behind that. If you have so little confidence in your ability to deliver a product the customer wants, maybe you should find a different line rather than being indemnified against loss.

          • In a sense, that regulation is supposedly what anti-trust laws are supposed to do. But it seems more honored in the breach than observance, at least for some players.

            Fascism was also a form of regulated capitalism but the danger is to what end capitalism is put. A strong argument can be made we DO have regulated capitalism (and fascism), but it is put to the end of enriching the few at the expense of the many.

            But this is more a problem of human nature than economics per se. A “bad” system run by good stewards seeking the good of its people would likely be a much more desirable polity under which to live than a “good” system run by bad people seeking to only enrich themselves.

          • How does the corporate form indemnify against loss? Insurance indemnifies against loss. The corporate form only protects against personal liability – it doesn’t “indemnify” you (i.e, pay you to make you whole from your loss). If the customer stops buying your crappy product, then you go out of business. The corporate form doesn’t indemnify you from that – you lose whatever you put into it.

            The corporate form has its place, and most states allow remedies for abusing it. What seems to have caused more damage is not the form, but (1) the financialization of the economy, and (2) privatizing gains and socializing losses (free bailouts). The Chrysler bailout was an example, but at least Chrysler paid it back at some point and it produced tangible products. Not sure whatever became of the banskter bailouts.

          • @c_matt, the corporate shield prevents creditors from attaching your personal assets except in cases like gross negligence or fraud.

            So, like we see time and again, you can open a business, get a bunch of vendors to extend you credit, pull in a bunch of customer money, and, as long as you expense all that before declaring bankruptcy, the creditors and customers take it in the shorts. Meanwhile, the principals, who overpaid themselves (like BLM’s Collors? Kollars?) get off scot free to pull the scam again.

            Living a couple hours from Chicago, I’m maybe a little more skeptical of what they call here, “The Chicago Way.”

  29. The recent history of Ukraine is a textbook example of how a relatively small number of powerful people duped a nation into committing suicide. Using various nefarious methods, they persuaded average white guys in western Ukraine to start killing average white people in eastern Ukraine. Then in stepped Russia to end this carnage and the elites upped the ante with a proxy war. Now you have a half million dead white guys, a few million maimed white guys, and an exodus of nearly half the prior population of Ukraine.

    You cannot beat this kind of evil with a slick political campaign, no matter how intelligent or accurate is your understanding of politics. When Zelensky was elected in 2018, he ran on a platform of peace with Russia. If politics mattered, none of the above would have happened.

    To prevent this outcome in the US and EU, we will need a different kind of solution. That is where are efforts should be focused.

  30. I understand your point, Zman, but as a boomer (young end of the boomer scale) it’s frustrating dealing with fellow boomers who believe the battle is Repub vs. Dem, watch NBC-CBS-ABC-FOX-CNN, gush over black conservatives, think absent fathers are the reason for black dysfunction, believe in “as long as they come LEGALLY,” and of course look at you in horror for talking about racial differences and the most taboo subject of all….which small group holds vast, disproportionate power.

    Maybe mocking these people is the way to reach them or maybe not. I don’t know. But they’ve staked out a position, and getting their ossified thinking to shift is a difficult task.

    • It’s really only the old white people with a little money and smugness about their situations that get attacked as “boomers.” They deserve it but I don’t know many of them. It’s more like a caricature to start the grievance mill grinding.

      • Right. And although many, probably most Boomercons are as Wolf describes them, the truth of race realism is finally dawning on more and more of them. Begrudgingly and belatedly they are beginning to face up to the ugly facts of our multiculti cesspit. It’s too little and too late, of course, but even Gen-Xers such as myself were too dam’ slow on the uptake.

        • I can’t say whether the truth is dawning on them in large numbers but some have changed. I’ve changed. One factor is the internet. I’m not sure I would hold the opinions I hold today without the internet. Of course, the detractors of an unmuzzled internet would say I’ve been flooded by ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation.’ LOL.

  31. The goal should not be infighting, but it seems at least part of this is a desperate plea from younger people for their elders, who should have been helping to establish them in the world, to give even the tiniest of shits about their predicament.

    What other higher mammal out there laughs at the immiseration of their children?

    Also, if somehow a 40 hour work week for some master is not enough to live, then *you are a slave*. Why is frantic toil insufficient to survive? Why were you born owing money in the nation that your grandfather built and owned freehold? Is this not a legitimate grievance?

    • Why were you born owing money in the nation that your grandfather built and owned freehold?

      Do you really believe that? Do you think there has been a freeholder since about 1789, at the very latest?

      And I doubt you need worry about being in “debt”. It’s been monetized, and barring those “debt-holders” deciding to go all Scrooge McDuck and go swimming in pools of greenbacks, it’s never going to happen. What you should be worrying about is that they start deciding those greenbacks are completely worthless. That’s Weimar Germany at best.

        • How about you look up the difference between ‘goodwill debate” amd “smug Know-It-All.”

          Your attitude is why everybody loathes Boomers.

    • “ it seems at least part of this is a desperate plea from younger people for their elders, who should have been helping to establish them in the world, to give even the tiniest of shits about their predicament.”

      Again too broad a brush. It’s not that we don’t care, it’s that for whatever the reason (I have ideas), we’ve helped in the wrong way. Just one example: Is there any younger generation cohort individual who can fog a mirror that cannot obtain 10’s of thousand of dollars in government loans to attend college? The largest public debt aside from CC’s is student loans.

      I maintain we do as a generation care, but our care is misplaced and wrongly directed. I’ll stop there.

    • It’s legitimate, but the reasons for our current misery are complex and longstanding and cannot all be laid at the feet of the Boomers. That’s too simple and easy. OTOH, it is unseemly for comfortable, self-satisfied elders to make sport of the agonies of the young. There’s blame enough to go ’round and we’d all best belly up to the shame buffet.

  32. Honestly assessing past mistakes is a key part of determining the correct future path. Accepting responsibility for the plight and condition of the next generations is perhaps the main role for men in a society.

    We know where we screwed up and we can see the mess our kids are in. So the inter-generational stuff is a huge waste of energy. The Barbarians are at the fricking gate now. Arguing about Reagan and teasing confused girls about their jobs and expectations isn’t going to help.

  33. I’m a fan of no enemies on the right. But the boomer is not now, and has never been, on the right. They are a plague, they oppose everything we want down to free association and safe places for our kids.

    Yeah, friend/enemy distinction is correct. They are the enemy.

    • Why does an idiot like yourself even come here?
      Did you not get any insights from today’s piece or many of Z’s others.

      • — David Wright was born in 1953 and just wants all these lazy kids to pick themselves up by their bootstraps the way he did and STOP BLAMING BOOMERS, SNOWFLAKE!

        • This little outburst is an excellent example of the ad hominem fallacy. How does “winning” versus David Wright feel, btp?
          You’d have more rhetorical force if you ended each of your posts like Cato, with “Boomer delenda est!”
          Can no one see that the comments today have been an Alanis-level ironic demonstration of what Zman was laying out? Sound and fury signifying nothing.

    • Joe Biden, John Kerry, George Soros, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, LBJ, Klaus Schwab, Diane Feinstein, John McCain… I might be your enemy btb (born as I was in 1960) but these are just a few of mine, and not one of them is or was a boomer.

      Cast your net wider man.

      • Not to bang on too much about this pet topic of mine, but here’s another cohort of non-Boomers who have much to answer for: Georges Bataille, Jacques Lacan, Emmanuel Levinas, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Paul Ricouer, Pierre Bourdieu, Jean-Jacques Lyotard, Roland Barthes, Gilles Delleuze, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Zygmunt Bauman, Michel de Certeau, Jean Beaudrillard, Luce Irigaray.

      • Boomer is kind of like saying “Third World.” There is no academically accepted political science definition of “Third World” but everyone knows what you mean when you use it.

  34. Z has a bad habit of putting just enough nuance on a topic to make simple and effective mass communication about it impossible, thus making mass politics impossible, thus making white survivial impossible. It’s akin to making a three-cushion shot but still scratching at the end.

    Politics? All boomers should be considered politically anti-white until they demonstrate otherwise.

    If there is a better way to get them see our situation and encourage action other than rubbing their noses in the mess they helped create, let’s hear it.

    Until the grandparents show any awareness that they were, in fact, finked on, I see no reason for Zoomers not to blame and shame them at least once. Unless maybe an individual thinks he might get some money for the cause out of not doing it. Though I will agree that making a running gag out of it is tiresome and wastes time. But it is still not as tiresome as shaking your fist at young whites who actually understand their predicament.

    This movement is about a future that Boomers will play no part in. Even if they did not actively abet the coming catastrophes, they were played for fools, and there is no fool like an old fool.

    Trying to rehabilitate such people is a fool’s errand.

    • No chit. Boomers will run their bloody mouths about how kids these days can’t afford homes or families because they’re stupid and lazy. Everything they have – they themselves have is because they worked HARD for it. When my parents went down that road I noted that THEIR parents, (my grandparents) literally fought wars to assure their future and prosperity for their kids. They voted on how best to do that and put their money where their mouths were. They saved and scrimped and were proud to put everything they had into their kids.

      By contrast, my boomer parents boated for politicos that offshored our jobs. Then they decided that women were just as good or better than men at everything…so they doubled the size of the labour pool. Then they started flooding the country with immigrants. Hmmmm – what would all that do to wages? Then they started deficit spending, replacing husbands with welfare, etc ad nauseum… and today our boys hide in the basement with video games and our daughters are coked to the gills on antidepressants. While the kids struggle to live their grandparents are touring the country in $700k RVs with two baths and granite countertops. Fags like Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell want to send the kids to fight and die in the Kraine and for Israel. Don’t you DARE ask them where they were during Viet Nam!

      Whites are literally making war on their kids. I think our esteemed blog host missed the mark: ‘stop noticing it, it’s bad optics and can’t solve anuthing’ is not true. If whites are to survive…we’d better start planning for our kids and grandchildren NOW.

      And maybe we should start euthanizing some of the elderly cretins that brought this about. The current POTUS would be a good starting point.

      • The real reason the ’50s model, stay at home mom, 2.4 kids cannot work the way people imagine it to have worked is the clash of cultures.

        Too many people can’t seem to get it through their thick skulls that most people prefer a different culture, specifically a multi-income household unit. That culture generates a lot more disposable income, and, on average, will always be able to outbid a single income. For anything they put their minds to.

        You can’t have the house of your dreams with a tradwife if you insist on living in places where that culture doesn’t exist to any degree. That does not mean you can’t have it, but you have to seek it somewhere other than downtown San Francisco.

        • Steve: Bullshite. The reason the ’50s model no longer works is because:

          A. The White US which manufactured everything is now mongrelized AINO which makes nothing, and

          B. That was a brief, highly unusual period in history when the US was the sole, massive industrialized economy which had not been turned to death and rubble by WWII, and

          C. The rapid replacement of an upper and wealthy class tied locally by ancestry and culture by a middle-man minority with a culture of verbal dexterity, wealth extraction, and a religion condoning ‘fleece the goyim.’

          And while culture is generally downstream from genetics, mass media has skewed and deformed innate individual choices and massively propagandized entire generations. When you claim “most people’ prefer a multi-income housing unit, you are most definitely not speaking of traditional, heritage White people. Traditional Whites were only briefly the majority in San Francisco, a gold-rush boom town.

          And California is hardly an example of the best America has to offer. Sure – those first and second generation immigrants who returned from WWII to a booming economy and were charmed by a more temperate climate enjoyed a very good life – but both they and their times were atypical. And they left nothing behind for future generations other than consumerism and diversity.

          • A. The White US which manufactured everything is now mongrelized AINO which makes nothing

            Yes, but how and why did it happen? For instance, take the early ’70s. Why did the Iron Range of Minnesota stop mining taconite, to ship to Gary to be made into steel, to ship to Detroit to make cars? The Great Lakes were still there, the infrastructure to support the industry were all in place and mostly paid for. What changed?

            B. That was a brief, highly unusual period in history when the US was the sole, massive industrialized economy which had not been turned to death and rubble by WWII

            The same argument applies to any country outside Europe. Capital has always been fluid, and Africa proves natural resources are not a sufficient driver. Why did post-war America boom while post-War Argentina did not?

            C. The rapid replacement of an upper and wealthy class tied locally by ancestry and culture by a middle-man minority with a culture of verbal dexterity, wealth extraction, and a religion condoning ‘fleece the goyim.’

            Again, yes, but how?

            It is impossible to formulate a viable solution without being able to define the causes.

          • What changed?

            Material costs are but one component. Someone has to dig, transport and fabricate the materials into something to sell. And they usually want to be paid for their troubles.

            At some point, total costs become lower to import (at slave wages) rather than manufacture at home.

            Protectionist policies were also derided as “isolationist” and “anti-free market” like that is a sin or something.

          • And they usually want to be paid for their troubles.

            Understood, @c_matt. So given that protectionism cannot be an answer, because all that does is impoverish buyers for the benefit of the government, what is the answer?

            Biden said in 2019 that the unemployed miners should learn to code. (Which just demonstrates how clueless he is — coding was already outsourced, the rest of it filled with H1Bs.) But if coding isn’t the answer, either, what is? Sure, there’s trades, but that’s just sloshing money around. So is FIRE. So are tariffs, come down to it.

            What can we do to make manufacturing viable? Hint: it won’t be anything that adds costs to them or their customers.

        • What was the White to bipoc hiring ratio of the Fortune 500 companies (or equivalent) in the 1950s?

          What is it today?

          • I agree. Affirmative Action was immoral when it was started in the ’70s, and it’s gotten worse since then. Particularly in the last decade. If one believes that voters make a difference, there’s a lot of blame to go around. In 2015, only about 1/3 of the electorate were boomers. Had every one of us conspired to deprive you of whatever it is we did, we’d have still been outvoted 2:1.

            And as boomers die off and zoomers come of age, we are even further diminished in 2024.

            So there must be some kind of an explanation for the rise of the BIPOC. It sure as hell wasn’t senior citizens in those BLM riots.

            Maybe voting doesn’t make a difference?

          • Well, there was that Harvard study that found no correlation between voting/people’s preferences and actual implemented policies. BUt this really has noting to do with voting, and everything to do with who is in positions of control/influence.

            The ones currently in the upper management ranks of industry, government and academia tend to be in the “mature” age bracket, and have been for quite a while. They are the ones setting policy, and that policy is to crush young White males at every opportunity.

            Not saying you are one of them, but NAXALT means nothing if EXALT.

          • The ones currently in the upper management ranks of industry, government and academia tend to be in the “mature” age bracket, and have been for quite a while. They are the ones setting policy, and that policy is to crush young White males at every opportunity.

            Correlation/causation, right?

            I’d agree the effect of those policies has been to crush young white males, though it is more general than that. It’s designed to crush all whites, but to splinter us up enough that we never realize it.

            And that’s why I come back around to the corporate form. Which exists not because of evil businessmen, but because government created a form that protects the principals from the consequences of bad decisions, which makes those bad decisions more likely.

            You want to get back to a ’50s style manufacturing economy? I think it can happen. You just have to return to where the primary business model was the sole proprietor or partnership, which was deliberately kept small because the principals didn’t want to lose everything because of one stupid mistake.

            But who is going to take on the corporations? Much easier to find someone else to blame.

      • “ they themselves have is because they worked HARD for it. When my parents went down that road I noted that THEIR parents, (my grandparents) literally fought wars to assure their future and prosperity for their kids. They voted on how best to do that and put their money where their mouths were. They saved and scrimped and were proud to put everything they had into their kids.”

        Again too broad a brush, not enough nuance. A couple of points from *this* Boomer:

        It is quite possible for those Boomers you speak of to truthfully claim they worked hard to get where they are. When I went to college, my tuition and board (sans food) was about $300 per semester. Just about everyone in the dorm had a min-wage job which paid those expenses. Within our economic environment at the time, we were earning our way.

        Fighting and dying in war? I must note that Vietnam claimed more lives than Korea (>50k) and those drafted and volunteering were *Boomers*!

        • “When I went to college, my tuition and board (sans food) was about $300 per semester. Just about everyone in the dorm had a min-wage job which paid those expenses. Within our economic environment at the time, we were earning our way.”

          Monumentally clueless and incurable deaf, the Boomers shall shuffle off Life’s stage….

      • Aren’t you an older Xer, Filthie? If your parents are Boomers they must have been quite young when they had you.

  35. Anything that pits whites against each other, especially since their government hates them and wants them replaced and dead, is stupid. “Boomer” for based whites has become an epithet similar to “white nationalist” for the greater Regime, which raises the question what is wrong with white nationalism, which also points out that the use of white supremacism is avoided as a slur precisely because it reveals a certain truth. These slurs contain enough truth to be amusing even if there is a retarded amount of innumeracy in “Boomer” and “white nationalist” is one of those only-if things.

    All that aside, white identity politics are unavoidable and they are here. I use “politics” broadly because as the ludicrous immigration bill reveals, there is no possibility of public input into the Regime, which rules solely by brute force. Since that legislation is doomed to fail, the only reason behind it must be to immiserate and humiliate. A government and state as shaky as ours is foolish to do such things, but the sociopaths and psychopaths who are the middlemen who run it cannot help themselves. If there were a way to honestly evaluate public opinion, it would be a safe bet that the United States government is the one most despised and loathed by its populace.

    As Lineman frequently writes, tribe up.

  36. Yeah, but the generational thing is part and parcel of the white civil war.

    In the end, the immigrants, blacks and Yids are not the source of our evils — white liberals are. They are the ones who side with all the others against their fellow white people.

    • Exactly. The Puritan prong of the “Judeo-Puritan” Regime leadership is our most deadly enemy. I suspect it even is getting ready to give the boot to its Jewish junior partner now, which is great but not a panacea for us.

      • The Biden regime is the least Protestant administration in the history of the US.

      • I seriously doubt the Jewish partner is the junior one. In any partnership, it is the rainmaker who controls. Who controls the central banks?

  37. I have no problem with having it out, but that might be in my nature. Went hard on my parents but also explained my position, and we came to an understanding.

    That’s possible because we’re clannish people— it hasn’t been beaten or bought out of us. You have to have that bond to air grievances and not become enemies. Which goes to the point of this post, I think. Like a lot of people say on here, it’s probably hardship that will rekindle tribalism in whites. Until then, it’s a race to the bottom.

  38. Reagan did massive amnesty that killed CA and now rest of country, singed in MLK, and made it impossible to sue vaccine manufacturers.

    It’s not about “attacking old friends” per se, it’s about opening one’s eyes we’ve been in the matrix a LONG time and a totally new mindset is necessary. Cutting taxes, free markets, and meritocracies just aint gonna cut it any more.

    • Don’t think the Zman necessarily disagrees with you. He really red-pilled me on the Republicans. Not that I thought the political system was any answer; just that I didn’t fully recognize the extent of their complicity. His point seems to be that generational politics can become a distraction.

    • As to the vaccine amnesty issue, those reforms were a necessary piece of government intervention into a market that had broken and a reasonable political compromise at the time. The US (and therefore the rest of the world) was facing a situation in which pharmaceutical companies were simply walking away from developing critical vaccines because: (a) they were expensive to develop, (b) the market for the vaccine the developed was uncertain, and (c) they were facing class action lawsuits based on science that was shaky at best and farcical at worst–the state of mass tort law in the 1980s was atrocious. It was a completely rational business decision to exit the market.

      The solution proposed by the political left was to put the government in charge of this process, essentially turning the US government into the world’s largest pharmaceutical company. This was deemed unacceptable by Republicans, as it should have been. The free market economists of the era had no free market solution to the problem, because none existed. The realpolitic legislative compromise to ensure the continuity of the vaccine market was the combination of government support for development funding, a government guaranteed market for vaccines, and immunity from lawsuits. Was it perfect? No. Did it work? Yes.

      In the 1980s it was impossible to conceive of a situation in which the US government would reach a level of evil at which it would hate its citizens and want them dead. What we really failed to appreciate was that without an external enemy after the Soviet Union collapsed, the US government would eventually turn against its own people.

      • I struggle to think of a useful or worthwhile vaccine that’s been produced in the last 40 years. Maybe Gardasil? That’s about it. So the vaccine amnesty was to save us from genital warts.

      • The free market economists of the era had no free market solution to the problem, because none existed.

        Except there was and still is a free market solution to it, but it will never be tried. That is, people develop the vaccines and those who want them can buy them. So long as there is informed consent, those who get the jabs have no legal recourse, since it was, y’know, consensual.

        But it requires that government butt out of the entire process. And once they got that power, they will never release it.

      • I’m not sure the Framers understood the evil corporate power would become, but they certainly understood the evils of government in the Anglo tradition, and we disregarded their wisdom, because government, for a time, was supposedly the people’s champ.

        It’s not public/private but big/small. You can’t let the big get too big, or they’ll pen you in and domesticate you. Yeah, freedom is harder and more dangerous, but at least you’re not livestock.

      • The solution was to reform tort law (which many states did) not grant immunity. The SCOTUS Daubert opinion, followed by most states either judicially or legislatively, pretty much put to rest the junk science part of the lawsuits. And if a drug kills and maims, it should be lawfared out of existence, not granted immunity. You want the financial rewards, you take the financial risks.

  39. Matt Walsh’s response was ridiculous. You should be able to work 40 hours a week and afford a 2 bedroom apartment. The fact that this is no longer possible is just another indicator of our coming 3rd world future.

    The typical person in Brazil can also not afford a 2 bedroom apartment on a 40 hour a week work schedule. The typical person in Brazil will work 40 hours a week scattered across 3 or 4 informal labor gigs to live in an informal tin shack with 7 other people.

    This is why republicans are the stupid party and how trump so easily rolled them up. Instead of agreeing that yes a reasonable lifestyle should be reasonably attainable they say you deserve to work 65 hour weeks year round and live in a flop house like those Indian immigrants we want to bring over.

    • Women should not be working, at all. It makes them miserable. That girl should be having kids. Not Matt Walsh’s kids. Walsh should be sterilized for shaming that girl, as if she were an adulteress rather than someone reacting as any woman should to being forced to work.

      • I only know of a handful of families where the wife doesn’t work and they exclusively fall into 3 categories.

        Category 1) husband is a lawyer or established professional engineer. They make enough to live in a safe neighborhood with safe schools. They will have enough income to pay for their kids to have a house in the future.

        Category 2) Families who inherited a house, or whose family has enough income to pay for a substantial amount of the down payment. Their parents are essentially papering over the downward mobility their families would otherwise experience. They won’t have enough money to play this game with their own children.

        Category 2) Hispanic families, the husband is a lead laborer. Makes around 50-60k, much of which is under the table cash payments. Live in a 3 bedroom apartment in a sketchy area, kids and wife are on Medicaid and SNAP. Husband gets earned income credit and the wife gets rental assistance. Their kids can likely maintain this lifestyle for future generations as long as tax dollars are available to subsidize them. Some of their kids are falling into the American ghetto culture and will not make it.

        • “They make enough to live in a safe neighborhood with safe schools.”

          Well that’s the problem, isn’t it? Not everyone is fit or needed to be an educated professional, and those who try and fail are saddled with debt, compounding the situation. Plus, the whole thing about moving and buying happiness is a lie. Nothing good was built by weak-kneed nerds.

      • joey: No, women ought not be working. But that girl was crying about not earning enough to PLAY. If she was working to help her husband save for a starter home in order to have children, that would be one thing. But she’s a child crying about childish things.

        • Not disagreeing, but it may come down to your definition of work. In historic terms, women have always worked. My grandmother, for instance, kept a flock of poultry and milk cows, tended a large vegetable garden, preserved vast amounts of food, kept the house and lawn spotlessly, and cooked three meals a day for her own sizable family and one or two hired men (in summer). My mother, though college educated, lived a similar lifestyle.

          I think the work versus stay-at-home question only arose when people were forced off the land and into the cities, and then only among the middle- or upper-middle classes where women had more free time than they knew what to do with (it being a new economy). This was particularly the case during the post-war period in America, where prosperity almost unprecedented before or since combined with first-wave feminism to persuade us that only traditionally male work could be worthwhile.

    • All around the developed world is the same thing. Housing prices are disastrous. It wasn’t always so…100 years ago or so, housing was cheap but food was expensive. Sometime after the Wars that flipped, and food became cheap while housing got dearer. Now of course we’re in Joe Biden’s post-WuFlu America, and both housing and food are expensive. This is literally the most expensive time to be an American. Did I mention that salaries haven’t risen since the 1970s?

      Every time I hear some Conservatard bang on about student loan debts and bootstrapping, I reach for my gun.

    • I couldn’t afford a two-bedroom apartment working 40 hours a week even in 1980, at least without a roommate.

      I’m not buying a word of this. Being young has always meant starting out on a shoe-string, unless you happen to be very, very lucky.

      I’d be interested in knowing when this mythical time was when people fresh out of school were earning enough to afford a decent 2 bedroom apartment solo. All I can tell you about it is I didn’t live through it, and I’ve been around for a plenty long time. There were plenty of young people making their way through their 20’s living on Rice-A-Roni and chicken soup even back in the 70’s and 80’s. This is nothing new.

      • A 3 bedroom 1500 square foot house on a 1/5 of an acre lot, built in 1963 near me just sold for $740,000.

        So you will need to save up $148,000 in cash for a 20% down payment. Then you will have a mortgage payment of $4,100, plus another 800 for property tax, and another 200 for insurance. Almost 5,000 a month.

        If you make 100,000, which would be great money for a guy in his 20’s your take home will be around $4,500 a month.

        Oh, and you’ll be paying $2,000 a month in rent while you try to save up for your $148k down payment. Will only take 8 years if you save almost a full paycheck every month!

        This is a long winded way of saying…..ok boomer.

        • More “OK, boomer”, I guess, but no one is forcing you to live where you are. Not yet, anyway. You get to choose whether you want to live somewhere with expensive housing or somewhere it’s more affordable.

          It has never been the case that just because you want something, you can afford it.

          Oh, and @Bruno, you could afford Rice-A-Roni? I am so jealous. Next you will be saying you could buy Hamburger Helper, too.

          • Yeah, this is part of why there is so much hatred for the boomer.

            If you can’t possibly afford to live in the town where you were raised, jut move away from your family and friends and start all over! Here you have an example of a specific case where nobody could reasonably be expected to buy into the working-class neighborhood they were born in, and Steve here just blithely tell everyone to start their own community, snowflake.

            Gradually, I began to hate them. Sorry, Z, there’s nothing for it.

          • Just move away from your entire community and family! Thanks for the advice grandpa! I guess I’ll see you once a year at Christmas until I have kids of my own, then I’ll stop visiting until your funeral.

            Do you even hear yourself?

          • There is always the suburbs where housing is cheaper. But then you have $3.00/gal gas to deal with. Guess you’ll just have to bootstrap harderer!

          • Oh, for fucks sake, do you people ever listen to yourselves? In most of the country, you are no more than an hour or two away from affordable land, coastal LA and places like that excepted. At even 20 MPG, and $4 a gallon, that’s $25 a day. Less than 2 hours of your entry-level burger flipper job. And you more than save that in housing.

            I grew up 2 hours from my grandparents, my kids grew up 2 hours from theirs. Visiting them was never an issue.

        • 3 years ago, I sold a 3 Bedroom/2 Bath 1500 sq/ft, 8450 sqft lot built 1959 and freshly remodeled. It is currently listed on Zillow for $179,000.

          My current home, also a 3 bedroom/2 bath deal, 2,108 sqft, lot 9,787 sqft built 1914 is currently listed on Zillow for $420,000. And I can assure you the basketball team is awful.

          Obviously, neither one of those houses was located in Martha’s Vineyard, but then, I don’t think just because your parents were rich enough to raise you in Martha’s Vineyard means you’re entitled to demand Martha’s Vineyard provide you with affordable housing so you can continue to live there too.

          As to complaints about having to leave the community you grew up in in order to make a living, exactly how do you think your ancestors got here? I live in Illinois because my grandfather moved from Saginaw to Chicago in order to find work. He was born in Saginaw because his grandfather migrated there from Baden-Württemberg for the same reason. Hate to break it to you, but cutting the apron strings is a large part of becoming an adult.

          Now, I’m not unsympathetic to complaints that as boomers, we had something of a charmed life. Certainly education and real estate were considerably cheaper than they are now.

          But no, I’ve got no sympathy for complaints that fresh out of school, you can’t afford a home in the chi-chi suburb your parents brought you up in (newsflash – I was nearly 40 before I could afford to do that).

          • He was born in Saginaw because his grandfather migrated there from Baden-Württemberg for the same reason. Hate to break it to you, but cutting the apron strings is a large part of becoming an adult.

            I was going to say something like that, but decided I’d prefer if someone else did. 😉

            Leaving home has been the norm since the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. And everyone had to leave the home place during England’s Enclosure. I knew my interests in computer programming would not pay enough in backwater flyover, and my later degree in chemical engineering would require me to move away. Until I had the stake to make my own job closer to where I wanted to live.

            I remember being resentful of the older people who told me they spent $2,000 for a 1,000 sf home, and those who managed to get in early enough to buy lakefront property in and around Minneapolis. Minnetonka, especially. Then I realized those people did not have much of an opportunity to get in on the ground floor when the IBM-PC came out, while I did. And as a result, I ended up wealthy enough to buy lakefront property 10 minutes from downtown, at vastly more than the seller paid.

            The opportunities are different, sure, but they are still there.

      • My folks married in ’65. He was 22, she was 19. Dad worked in an electric motor repair shop, and mom had me. By 1967 they were living in a two-bedroom house in a respectable nabe. Now this doesn’t confute your argument. Young couples have always had to scrimp and save to get by. But I truly believe the situation is far worse now than it was when my parents started out in life.

        • My guess is your dad started his job just out of high school, and in 8 years had saved up enough for a downpayment? Sounds about right.

          The problem now is that they are entering the workforce at about 21, 22, with a house’s worth of student debt. Of course it’s going to take more than 8 years, especially since they have that student debt hanging over them.

          FFS, if you care about your kids, and can’t afford to pay their college, at least try to convince them that if they really want to work at McDonalds, they can do that without the college degree.

    • Someone at The Duran mentioned in passing that the head of the Russian Central Bank just announced her plans to make real estate more affordable. It was just rate cuts.

  40. Well it’s easy to sit on the sidelines of a feud if you have no skin in it, Z. Maybe you had great parents and great kids and were somehow insulated from this one. I come from a family of nauseatingly entitled elderly shitlib boomers and when they give me the gears, I tell them where to go and how to get there. When they go off on young people I go off on them. The way liberal white people treat their kids and families is best described as criminally negligent.

    Hell’s bells, all this faggot/tranny stuff is basically a set up to normalize a society wide sexual attack on children. Y’know…Mike Judge said it best back in the 90’s when he was getting reamed for his offensive work with ‘Beavis & Butthead’. The elderly and frumps crapped on him saying “You’re setting horrible examples for young people!!!” He turned around and said, “Look, America: if YOU don’t clean up YOUR act and start parenting your kids… that’s what they’re going to look like…”

    You don’t have kids of your own, do you Z?

        • But you have taken Zman’s reflections on the influence of society on his own family decisions as evidence of a lack of self-awareness, when in fact it demonstrates the exact opposite.

  41. The problem isn’t the boomers, but when the boomers grew up. They just happened to be young when mass affluence became common and their newfound early purchasing power—especially disposable allowance and parttime job money for fast food, movies, records, cars, and clothes—meant everything became geared toward the youth—the newly-invented teenager demographic. It was at this point that America became a bit like “Logan’s Run,” the old SF movie in which everyone lives in paradise until they turn twenty-five (or was it thirty?) at which point, their little homing beacon in their hand goes off and they’re executed. The obsession with youth is ultimately just fear of the human condition, which is natural, but taken to an incredible and unhealthy extreme. Like Humbert Humbert in Nabokov’s “Lolita’ it’s all a bit hebephiliac and sick. The female teachers sleeping with male students and “Twilight Moms” fawning over teenage boys are symptoms of this cultural fixation.

    I don’t think it’s an accident that Fauci—the man who treated a bad flu season like the Bubonic Plague—is a boomer. People just a generation or two before might live too far from the funeral director and be forced to put a body on ice, in a galvanized tub—in the house—on display for a day or two until the undertaker came.

    Another key point about this age cohort: They were the first for whom participation in war became truly optional. Oxford dons died in the trenches in the Great War, and the fathers of neocons—obnoxious New Yorkers like Norman Mailer—at least served, even if just in the “Jewish Infantry” as quartermasters or in supply or intelligence, during World War II. Vietnam was the first time you could really just hide out at college—call yourself peacenik when your draft number was low then become hawkish once your hair started getting streaks of grey. Bill Kristol, Kagan, et. al. are younger Boomers, but old enough to have gotten the message in the late sixties and early seventies: no personal risk came with war anymore. These same people saying kids see the world as a videogame/first person shooter still don’t understand the horror they’ve brought to places like Iraq, Palestine, and the Ukraine.

    Then, as Derb said, in the early 90s these people reaped a harvest they hadn’t sown—the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the Silicon Valley revolution. So the problem isn’t them, but the prosperity-centered (and historically unrealistic) expectations of good and easy times they brought with them.

    I don’t begrudge anyone an easy path—lucky’s better than good on any day—but neither do I want to hear someone like Bill Maher talking about how these kids coming up in this incredibly screwed up world just need to suck it up. Working sixty hours a week as a barista and spending your little extra income to simp for some cam model seems worse than working in a coal mine and having a wife and kids to come home to, even if the wife is henpecking and the kids crying.

    • Small point of correction. Fauci was born in 1940, definitely not a Boomer. Not that it matters much.

      • Therein lies the rub:

        A “boomer” is anyone older than you who’s done well. (Plenty didn’t…energy shortages in the 1970s, 18% 30-yr mortgages with no expectation of lower refinancing in the future, an endless Cold War, Viet Nam, endless Supreme Court decisions overturning the legislative process,etc)

        The median nest egg for boomers is $200,000k, or $8k/yr to live on following a recommended 4% max annual withdrawal. Sound rich to you? Not me, and because they can’t play the stock market like a young person, their safe investments were destroyed by inflation over the past 3 years.

        Put another way, this is like 3 generations now blaming YOU for their woes. You’re voting, right? Your fault! (Also stupid)

        Internet personalities have a field day with: Hating boomers, Hating the vaccinated, Hating those who think poorly of “the god emperor”, Hating those unlucky in love and ranking them via Greek alphabet. They also fled the country, so F them.

        Inter generational blame is counterproductive at best and willful ignorance at best.

        • It not just innumeracy in Boomer bashing, it’s often a fallacy of reasoning in the subsumed argument, as in “all Boomers”, when in reality it some smallish percentage. It’s in conflating economic conditions, between then and now. It’s in assuming the generational cohorts are of the same race mixture or ability. And so forth.

          This is what makes the Boomer bashing counterproductive as there can be no correct conclusions draw to direct societal actions from fallacious reasoning.

    • My paternal grandfather had some experience with the first paragraph of your missive. The Spanish Flu was in full swing when he was fifteen and he told me of how one morning a horse-drawn cart went by his family’s home to the house next door. He told me of how three bodies wrapped in white were removed from the house and carted away.
      He once chided me about something when I was in my teens and before I could respond, he said, “when I was your age there was no such thing as the teenage years. You went to work after school and once you graduated, you went to work supporting your family full time.” He didn’t address me in a condescending tone, but rather matter-of-factly and it made me grateful for the time I had. Being born in 1903, I’m not sure what generation that put him in, if there was even such a thing back then.

  42. ‘It is no different from the war of the sexes business, where feminists and anti-feminists seek to pit white males against white females.’

    The what? Fifty years of total feminism in America and the larger West, combined with the overt and gleeful destruction of fatherhood and masculinity by every institutional power, is no different than silly ‘generational warfare’ where boomers and zoomers spar?

    Get real.

    White females ARE the core of leftism, progressivism, child slaughter, civilizational degradation, and the Demoncrapic Party. Speaking the truth about their collective attacks on God and country during the past century clearly discomfits you. Sorry to hear that. No wonder the place is failing.

    Feminism IS the culture of your nation. These people ARE in charge everywhere, from the first-grade classroom to the county courtrooms to the WH cabinet.

    The ‘anti-feminists’ that you demean have no institutional power, no massive organizations like (white-women’s) feminism, no tremendous financial or cultural or legal backing.

    They have done the dirty, dangerous work that men like you ought to have done but did not, while you sent your empowered daughters to whore college the better to learn how to hate you for your maleness and whiteness, and to ‘deconstruct’ the godly and healthy culture that strong men built. Do you know who the Disinformation Governance Board of the feds immediately targeted? THOSE FEW MEN.

    You smear those few fighting against tyranny, men who have sacrificed much. Buy a cup of coffee with that.

    • Women only have the power men give them. If women act they way you describe, it’s because there are men in the shadows encouraging it for their own ends. You beat feminism by your culture being the strong horse that will secure their safety and offspring.

      If the dominant culture became hard-right, you would see the same feminists smiling at home with her children and putting “immigrants keep out” lawn signs in their yard. It’s all status signaling, not any sort of political agency.

      • All that may be true in a civilizational sense, but what can we actually do as individual dissidents? A not insignificant number of White men will end up marrying Asian or Hispanic women if that seems to be the only viable relationship open to them. So even when those responsible for the de-feminization of White women lose, they still win. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

        • Gideon: White women are unquestionably entitled and insane, at present. But White men marrying Asian or Hispanic women still means the end of the White race. That is too often glossed over, but it’s a cold, hard fact.

          • It’s the obvious fact. Forming White communities, be they church, job or service based (all of which may be persecuted, even prosecuted), is the answer. But in the short-term, them’s the choices we’re presented with.

      • Indeed there are men in the shadows singing empowerment. Evil whisperings began almost concurrent with humanity itself, though they were not human whisperings.

        As Scripture attests, Eve did not rebel and seek to usurp the role and position of others by the fault of Adam. Though woman is encouraged to these things, she yet does them of her own will, and will be judged accordingly and individually.

        Females certainly do have inherent power — which they exercise frequently — and it is inaccurate and destructive to suggest they do not.

    • And who do you think funded, organized and promoted the early feminists?

      Who continues to do so?

      White women – like all women – are biologically designed to go along with whatever the dominant tribe says is good and go against whatever the tribe says is bad.

      Today, women get those signals from power institutions of society – government, schools and media. Most white women support feminism because that’s what their tribe says to support. You’ll notice that Muslim, Amish and true Christian women don’t support feminism. Why? Because they don’t look at the larger society as their tribe, their protector.

      If you want white women to reject feminism, you have to show them that there’s another, better tribe for them that rejects feminism. If white women’s choice was live and work around non-whites and be a feminist, or live and work around whites and not be a feminist, they’d reject feminism.

      Right now, that’s not possible, but over time, as the larger society gets less and less stable, women will look to find a new tribe. Our job is to start laying the groundwork for those communities.

      • Citizen: Yes . . . and no. You are absolutely correct that women, in general, are far more attuned to the dominant group and ideology. But I would counter that you also excuse their emotionally incontinent and unthinking and often malicious behavior by so arguing. Women used to sacrifice for their children and families; now they either kill them, pawn them off on others to raise, or are more concerned with lattes and lash extensions than learning to cook and budget.

        The ‘mean girl’ tendency and endless desire for attention may be hardwired, but they were never before so indulged and excused. Men used to limit and control women’s absolute freedom because common sense and experience had taught them that unrestrained women are generally foolish, vain, selfish, disloyal, and utterly dyscivilizational.

        When I argue that political dissidents oughtn’t send their daughters to college, many seem to think I’m saying they need to keep them totally docile and illiterate. I would hardly be described as docile, yet my husband is unquestionably the head of the family. Not because I ‘allow’ him to be, but because he just is – by his assumptions and behavior and reason and wisdom. Certainly tradition plays some part in it, but I would not be easily controlled by a fool.

        Women need to be educated enough to be a good helpmeet to their husbands and the first teachers of their children. But ‘education’ and ‘college credentials’ are in no way the same thing, and everything a young White girl learns in college today is anti-tradition, anti-common sense, anti-family, and anti-White.

        Women are not men, but they do have agency, and need to be held accountable for their weaknesses and sins. Simply saying they are biologically inclined to follow the herd seems to me to be too easily excusing malice and sin.

        • 3g4me —

          Well said.

          Daddy wants to excuse Daughter. The primal and continuing downfall of the male is doing what females want, instead of what God wants (and what is best for all).

          The man can punish the man, but cannot bring himself to punish the woman. Thus chaos reigns.

        • Men used to limit and control women’s absolute freedom because common sense and experience had taught them that unrestrained women are generally foolish, vain, selfish, disloyal, and utterly dyscivilizational.

          Yes, but maybe not in the brutal sense one might interpret that. Men of my parent’s and grandparent’s day made their women feel loved, secure, and provided for. It wasn’t so much submission to the “patriarchy” as the recognition that it was a damn good life to raise your kids and help raise your grandkids.

    • Ray, I enjoy your posts. They make me think.

      But we disagree about the culpability of women. I think that they are pawns, almost literally without agency, and you think that they are the kingpins. I think women just want to please the winners and you think that they are the masterminds.

      I wonder about what evidence could settle our difference, but nothing comes to mind. The world is sure complex.

      Here’s a question: Lots of people say that the German women were the most enthusiastic Nazis. While the Nazis were socialists they also rigorously enforced traditional European morality. No more prostitution or public degeneracy, for example.

      I explain this by saying that the women thought that the Nazis had won and so they vigorously supported them. Why do you think that the women enthusiastically supported a regime that enforced traditional European morality?

      • Thank you for your response.

        Women certainly are not kingpins, nor are they masterminds. But they are running the institutions of many western nations now, look around. This must be acknowledged without keeling over into the hyperbole of women being ‘masterminds’ etc.

        Yes of course females are manipulated by higher powers, and led from fashion to fashion, hysteria to hysteria. Females are collectivist beings.

        However, at present you and your friends cannot access (much less overthrow) those higher powers . . . which are very real, believe me.

        Therefore the necessity is to take-in-hand the totalitarianism, chaos, progressivism, libertinism, and the interminable attacks on fatherhood and masculinity, which means dumping the collective and individual empowerment of females (yes including YOUR daughters and so forth).

        That you CAN affect. First step in doing that is to hold females responsible and culpable for whatever malevolence they do. Instead of allowing them to run riot everywhere and destroy your civilization, under the cover that females are only pawns and are ‘literally without agency’, as you wrote.

        So ya gets what ya gots now: females ruling over you, who live almost without consequence under the proposition that they are lifelong babies who cannot be held responsible for their own actions. Simultaneously, they dominate both institutions and culture. What you’re wanting is fried ice.

        As I mentioned prior, women WILL be held responsible for what they do in this world, just like men. Permitting women to rule the western nations sets them up for condemnation. And us for condemn nation.

  43. In my forty some years on this earth, I have never seen such a middle-finger piece of legislation than that border bill. Even the Obamacare drafts weren’t as odious. Previously they at least try to mask the evil they are imposing on us, but it’s in your face, in clear text, mocking you.

    • Reminds me of the scene from the 9th Configuration where the Marine is humiliated and degraded by crazy bikers. With each subsequent degradation which the Marine endures just drives the crazed bullies even crazier. They can’t believe he won’t fight back no matter what. Of course, then he does with a vengeance.

      When will we?

      • [I]When will we?[/I]

        When heritage americans are willing to accept the prospect of dire consequences for taking action. When even mere organizing can result in dire penalties. Desperation by which time it’s too late.

        Most will just wait to see what happens.

    • Since there is no way this monstrosity even comes close to passage, it raises the question of “why?” What is the purpose? My guess it is an intentional slap across the face to anyone who still thinks they have the least bit of input into public policy. Your self-perceived betters are telling you to submit.

      The ongoing dissolution and fragmentation has been inadvertently (I think) accelerated. They can govern by force until the economy sours, of course, and that day likely isn’t in the distant future.

    • That, and all the legislation coming out of New York, California, Washington etc. re: race and immigration. It really does feel like simple reactionary spite. I am trying to think of a charitable view of why TPTB are doing this, because I don’t like to instantly attribute malice to things. But this boggles the mind. It’s like the Chinese Communist Party in the late 1950s, where Mao just thought up some ridiculous crackpot scheme and…people just went with it. Hive mind I guess.

      • “If the deplorables want something, then the opposite must be good” is a frighteningly large part of public policy nowadays

    • It’s probably wrong to ascribe any kind of 3-D thinking to the clowns in the GOP, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the plan is to spend the year teaming up with the Dems to pass the most offensive legislation possible. They may have realized by this point that Trump is running away with the GOP nomination and it doesn’t seem their plans to remove him from the ballot are bearing any fruit. Maybe the back-up plan is to dispirit and demoralize their own voters as much as possible in hopes they give up in disgust and stay home in November.

      • Maybe, but that runs a serious risk (at least on the R side) of folks voting for Trump and giving the middle finger down ballot. Guys like Bitch McConnell, Ms. Graham, Ted Cruz are extremely vulnerable, Cornyn too if he were up this time.

  44. “ The Charlottesville rally in 2018 turned out to be disastrous activism for the alt-right. It rallied their enemies and gutted their support in the broader community.”

    If Charlottesville was a catastrophe, the fault lay with the broader right rather than the people who showed up.

    It was a peaceful protest where they were attacked,

    A combination of the left’s control of the media and the traitorous handwringing on the right unjustly placed the blame for everything that went wrong on the protesters.

    Everything they were protesting against was proven correct when in 2020, the left moved on to toppling other less controversial statues and other aspects of western culture.

    A right that steadfastly does nothing except talking as the civilization around it is dismantled, is a movement that doesn’t deserve to win or to continue to exist.

    • An example of how far we’ve gotten is the reality that is a Charlottesville happened again this year, the protestors might go to jail, but the mainstream right pundits who counter-signaled against the protest would get shouted down by the dissident sphere to popular support.

      People really have had it.

    • A combination of the left’s control of the media and the traitorous handwringing on the right unjustly placed the blame for everything that went wrong [at Charlottesville] on the protesters.

      Indeed. The establishment has made it practically illegal to practice right-wing activism, while rewarding actual leftist terrorists with cash payments for their supposed rough treatment by the state. Ironic when you consider the dropped charges and plea deals the latter were given versus the draconian sentence meted out to James Fields, essentially for the crime of being there. That persecution continues with the January 6 protesters.

    • Hard to say whether Charlottesville was setback. In one sense, yes, on the surface it appears to have been a PR disaster with respect to normies and those “notice challenged.” But beneath the surface, and maybe not at first, it brought to light that protesting is only allowed for regime approved issues by the regime approved pets, and what and who is approved. It also brought to light tactics will have to be clandestine – we cannot play with the same toys as the other side because we don’t have the power structure behind us.

      tl;dr – it showed the ZOG is fake and gay.

      • It did no such thing.

        It was already established standard procedure at Trump campaign events for police to “funnel” MAGA normies into antifa assaults—and assassinations, on at least two known occasions. Even if the volunteer meat shields of Charlottesville didn’t know that, the organizers did.

        They provided the media with finely posed pictures of statistically average American men looking like TV neonazis—which had *never happened before*—and they gave the establishment reassurance that Trump becoming president would change nothing.

        Job well done.

  45. Well said, there are a lot of folks on our side who need to read this and take it to heart. Attacking your natural allies is a way to certain defeat.

    • The question is whether the boomer is the natural ally of the dissident right.

      I assert that the boomer enthusiastically supports:
      – no free association
      – Israel
      – feminism
      – Our Democracy
      – offshoring
      – civil rights, especially Blessed MLK
      – endless war
      – etc.

      They are not the natural allies of the dissident right and should be treated as the enemies they are.

      Change my mind.

      • Here I am. Granted, I resent being called a Boomer, when the first time I could legally vote was 1980. There is nothing on your list that I have ever supported or ever will. My wife is 15 years older – a real boomer. I don’t see anything on the list she supports…

          • Actually, it is in mathematics… In any event, the burden of demonstration in this case lies with the accuser, and unless he can demonstrate in a statistically sound way that a preponderance of us born between 1946 and 1964 hold those views, his only other weapons would be to cite examples. or hurl insults. NAXALT cuts both ways.

      • You do know that most, in fact great majorities of every generation support those things, don’t you? That sort of renders your reply moot.

        • Yeah well War Karen is touting polls that show her beating Biden in a landslide and Trump in primaries. So there’s that. However of the things listed Israel is the mostly to be the Boomer weakness. That has been brainwashed into them since birth and will never be completely eradicated.

          • However of the things listed Israel is the mostly to be the Boomer weakness. That has been brainwashed into them since birth and will never be completely eradicated.

            Unfortunately, you are probably right.

            I don’t know what I’d have answered. There’s not a category for, “Not my monkeys.”

Comments are closed.