A glimpse into the millennial mind

As seen on Tumblr:

millennials

For those not up on lefty millennial jargon, ‘terf’ is an acronym for ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist’, in plain English, a ‘radical feminist’ (is there any other  kind these days?) who does not accept ‘trans women’ as women.

I suppose you could say the ‘terf’ (who is being disinvited from following the Tumblr blogger who posted the above) still has some kind of tenuous grasp on what is called reality. No realists welcome in the lefty fold; it seems that’s a basic tenet of leftism in the millennial universe.

Then there was this gem from last November:

millennials 2016-11-23_025425

It appears that they didn’t do their job of ‘educating’ the wayward older generation, as their side didn’t succeed in electing Hillary — or even getting Bernie past the primaries.

But did ‘we’ win, after all, or did they? Time will tell. As I say, ‘they’ are winning the cultural/societal battles, handily. It’s about so much more than politics.

 

The opposite of political correctness?

At TakiMag, Theodore Dalrymple — I mean (((Theodore Dalrymple))) offers some good points and clever turns of phrase in discussing political correctness. He describes it as a form of mass hysteria — which it does seem to be.  Then there’s this: “…the politically correct speak power to truth.

However, I felt as one of the commenters on the article said: this piece is an example of ‘bait-and-switch.’ It goes from being a scathing piece about PC to bemoaning and lambasting the responses to PC. The examples of rightist ‘hate speech’ which he cites,  are pretty over-the-top.

Did he cherry-pick those extreme examples, or are they more common than I realize?

I wouldn’t deny that some of the comments, ostensibly by ‘right-wing’ commenters online, can be callous, ugly, and sometimes objectionable even to many of us on the right. For example, I’ve seen comments over the years recommending that certain people be ‘incinerated’. I’ve seen comments from those ostensibly on the right  expressing approval over the rape or murder of certain people. I found this appalling. But these comments about ‘incineration’, rape, and murder were not directed at the traditional protected groups according to the PC hierarchy: they were directed at White people — but White people who are among the ‘out-groups’ for some on the right. The ‘incineration’ comment, for example, was directed at fat people  — and it was posted on that hotbed of ‘extremism’, Free Republic, of all places. Now, it may be that the comment or comments were later deleted by mods there, after all, the mods used to ban even mild posts perceived as ‘anti-Hispanic’ in the days before most people were so incensed about illegal immigration. The comments approving of rape and/or murder — by immigrants, actually, were in reference to baby boomers — who, according to many on the young right, deserve such a fate. However it appears that Dalrymple’s outrage about the ‘vile’ comments he cites was an outrage on behalf of minority groups/nonwhites. So who’s being politically correct?

Dalrymple should know that the left engages in worse rhetoric, or at least rhetoric equally bad, in reference to Whites/Christians/heterosexuals. One example of anti-White hatred on another blog was a social media post — Facebook, I think — calling for White women to be caught and killed before they produced more White babies. What’s that law about ‘equal and opposite reactions?’

All that aside, no one on the comment thread seems to question the authenticity of some of the over-the-top bloodthirsty comments Dalrymple gives. Considering what we know of the left, of their duplicity and dirty tactics — and the fact that they are known to employ online operatives to provoke, to derail and disrupt, and to deceive and slander, could it not be that the worst of those comments were written by lefties in order to direct anger at the right? The comments seemed almost to border on parody or caricature.

Whether or not some of the extremist sentiments are justifiable or understandable, it does seem that it’s counterproductive, at the least, to indulge in that kind of rhetoric. I don’t recommend being mealy-mouthed or so genteel as to be feeble in our self-expression, I think there’s a way to express strong sentiments without going beyond certain limits. Adopting the tactics of the left only escalates this trend of abandoning all discretion.

The vanishing White vocal tradition

There’s been discussion about “cultural appropriation” on the part of White people, with the implication being that Whites “steal” from the culture of the vibrant enrichers — why? The insinuation, sometimes expressed openly, is that White people have no culture of their own, at least, not any worth mentioning. Whites, then, are compelled to steal from the ‘rich’ cultures and ways of the nonwhite peoples, or else they do so maliciously in order to take credit for it. This is just a variation of the Farrakhan-style Afrocentrism which says that Whites ‘stole’ all the African knowledge and learning, thus leaving them with none.

However, Whites are in fact ‘appropriating’ many aspects of black culture, such as the ongoing adoption of black slang (most of our new slang words and phrases seem to have black origins, going back some decades), via White youth culture, which is especially fond of adopting black fads and fashions.

Besides slang there is the example of the black singing style, which seems to have become near-universal amongst younger White pop singers. Examples are legion; I am sure some of you know of more examples than I do, given that I don’t watch TV or listen to radio except for a few stations. However we don’t have to be au courant with the latest pop music (rap, hip-hop, etc.) to look for illustrations. We could go back some decades, to people like Michael Bolton — yes, I know, it’s (((Michael Bolton))), or Taylor Dayne. Or let’s go back to the 1960s, with the Rolling Stones. I remember sort of cringing when listening to Mick Jagger’s ‘vocals’, on songs like ”You Can Make it If You Try‘, where he spoke some of the lyrics, emulating Gene Allison, the black singer who first had a hit with that song. Back then I was far from racially conscious, but Jagger’s style made me want to give him a news flash: that he was White, not black.

Recently a family member and I were talking about how all of today’s White pop singers seem to emulate the black ‘soul’ vocal style, which seems to center around ‘trilling’, bending the notes beyond all recognition, and veering far from the real melody of the song to ‘improvise.’ The emphasis is on exaggerated shows of emotion, with much groaning and moaning, and straining, as if in pain. Yes, I realize that’s part of the intention; it’s been known as ‘soul’ music at least since the 60s, and the claim was that only black people had this vaguely-defined quality called ‘soul’, because of their unique heritage of ‘slavery, Jim Crow’ and the rest, whereas White people are soulless as well as, well, colorless.

Unfortunately White people think they can acquire “soul” via their adulation for black people, it seems. Salvation, for White liberals, is not via grace (through faith in Jesus Christ), but via blacks. Cambria Will Not Yield uses the term worship in this context and it seems he’s not far off.

As it stands, it’s getting harder and harder to find a White singer, especially young White popular singer who does not mimic the black style. Julian Lee, via Counter Currents, wrote a very thorough piece about this trend, and being more versed in music than I am, he expressed it very well. If you are interested in music and White musical traditions it’s well worth reading.

Incidentally, in the piece by Julian Lee, check out the photo of Beyonce; it will take you back to the days when she was still black. It seems the cultural appropriation goes both ways, what with nonwhites ‘appropriating’ the White phenotype, with blonde hair weaves or dye jobs, and skin-bleaching, plus colored contacts.

One black tradition that’s been attempted by Whites is the strange practice of ‘scat-singing’ or more accurately, just ‘scatting.’ Ever since I was a child I found ‘scatting’ to be rather embarrassing when a White tries it. I recently learned I’m not the only one. On the quirky British comedy series, The Mighty Boosh, one of the characters has a strong reaction to ‘scatting’

Oh, scat! Out of all the aspects of jazz, scat has got to be the worst, the main offender.
– You don’t know what it is, do you?

– Not really, but when it comes on, I go red.

Let me demonstrate to you a little bit of the power of jazz scat singing.
Jooby-do-bop, voo-voo-voo-voo, va Bow-voo-doo-boo-boo, bap-a-doo-ju-ju, jooby-do-boo Do-do-do-do, ba! Ba-ba-bow, ju-ba-ba-bow

Oh, I’ve got to get away from you. You’re a freak.
I can feel myself going red.”

It also makes mego red‘. It’s just unseemly somehow. It’s the vocal equivalent of a White person in blackface. It sounds as silly as blackface looks.

Even country music, for a long time the lone bastion of White musicians and musical styles, is succumbing to the influence of blacks, and this is very much intentional on the part of the music moguls, I’m sure. Going back some years now, country musicians have performed songs promoting multiculturalism and universalism, and Brad Paisley, with such a song, unintentionally drew accusations of racism. Sorry, but I have to laugh. But even White country singers are adopting black styles of singing, including using black back-up singers. Can’t have a White style of music, now, can we? That would be racist.

Meanwhile, even ‘folk music’, which at times has been more artificial than grassroots in style, is succumbing, and no surprise, as many ‘folk’ or traditional musicians from Europe and this country are dedicated multiculturalists. This baffles me. Musicians like the Breton icon, Alan Stivell, apparently love the traditions of their folk — yet they incorporate ‘world music’, that is, Third world music, into their work. I just don’t see how loving something, supposedly preserving tradition, allows for adulterating it and blending it with utterly alien influences. We’ve all heard the cliche that ‘music is the universal language’, and it sounds good, but is it really true? I’ve listened to many styles of music from varied cultures, and they may all be interesting in their way. However many sound discordant and unpleasant to my ear, and the music which is from our Western European traditions resonates the best with me, and really speaks to my spirit. I think this is true of most people, if they were honest.

East or West, home is best. I believe the statement that music expresses the soul of a  people, and each people has a unique musical expression, not reproducible by outsiders. Outsiders may ape and mimic something that is not theirs, but the spirit is not there; others’ music is a foreign language and we can’t speak it without a telling ‘accent’ though we try.

Is there any hope of us recovering our own musical and especially vocal styles? I wonder. Not without some reclamation of our self-respect as a people.

 

The ‘preppy’ totalitarians

The story about Charles Murray and his speech at Middlebury College in Vermont is being discussed around the Internet. The fact that a (typically leftist) professor at that college was also assaulted by the ‘student’ thugs adds a twist to it. Surely she is ‘one of their own’, having the correct politics and the kinds of views which are the only kind these apostles of ‘tolerance’ will tolerate.

One thing I’ve noted in the various online comments on the incidents: many are referring to the ‘preppy’ character of the school and the student body, as if it adds to the shocking nature to imagine WASP-y, wealthy students behaving this way. No doubt some of the worst of the ‘social justice’ brownshirts are White students from wealthy homes in the supposedly very White Northeast. But just look at the photo in the linked article; that audience does not look ‘hideously White’ nor very ‘preppy.’ It does not look all that different from the mixed crowd at the community college in the college town near me. So I looked up the demographics of the student body. For a start,  the student body contains only 4% Vermonters. Students come from 42 states, plus the District of Corruption Columbia. They come from no less than 40 countries.

So the student body does not reflect the demographics of the setting, of rural Vermont or New England, or even much of America, come to that.

One other factor: not all the students at that college need be wealthy, considering the prevalence of financial aid. And if diversity is mandatory and of the utmost importance (as these colleges all say it is), then by all means be generous to students without the money to pay the high tuition, but with the requisite amount of ‘vibrancy’, to entice them to come and enrich the diversity-deficient Whites.

If the students of that University are overwhelmingly indoctrinated leftists, as it appears they are, is this because it is in liberal New England, or is that just the nature of college campuses all over America now? I have acquaintances who sent their child to Christian schools (in a non-diverse community) K-12, at considerable expense, and then to one of the most conservative (supposedly) Christian colleges. That college turned their child into a raving SJW in very short order. So it’s everywhere now.

The people who put much stock in Colin Woodward’s conjectures about the ‘nations’ of America place the blame on the old Puritans for the liberalism of New England. In this case, it seems as though the diversity that has been visited on New England since at least the mid-19th century is still having its effect, and the presence of all the ‘diversity’ at Middlebury in 2017 has its effect too. When you introduce outsiders into what has been a homogeneous culture, you make people more self-conscious about the opinions of those ‘Others’ and soon free speech is not so free; we can’t offend anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings. Diversity=death to free discourse and honesty.

Free housing for refugees

Brian Chesky, CEO of Airbnb, has criticized President Trump’s “crackdown on immigration” and has offered free housing to refugees and “anyone impacted” the supposed crackdown. Similarly, the very left-wing executives at Starbuck’s have announced plans to hire 10,000 (!) refugees in their overpriced establishments.

By the way: Chesky, like the owners of Starbuck’s, fit the typical pattern: immigrant stock, or is that (((immigrant stock)))? And millennial too, in the case of Chesky.

In the social media, one Tumblr blogger who dared to criticize Chesky’s action was promptly called (by a fellow Tumblr blogger) an ‘ignorant racist’ and told that as Tumblr was a ‘pro-immigration site’, people who dissent from that stance must ‘get off’ Tumblr, followed by other profane and insulting remarks. The conservative blogger who criticized Chesky said simply that while our own veterans are often without housing, people like Chesky ignore them and prefer to morally preen and strut by showing their ‘compassion’ towards unknown third-worlders. As the offending ‘conservative’ lady said, we ought to care for our own first, a viewpoint which was the consensus view up until recent times.

The rhetoric is getting uglier and uglier on internet spots like Tumblr, which is dominated by maleducated, brainwashed millennials, and only one viewpoint is acceptable there. That group of people are the least tolerant, the most totalitarian, of any age group alive today, probably than any group of people in history. The Jacobins in 18th-century France were probably paragons of tolerance compared to the millennials of Western countries. I see some very worrying trends; it seems that the younger leftists (that’s redundant, by the way; they are almost all SJWs, and the fact that there are exceptions does not negate the rule) are allying more and more blatantly with Moslems. I’ve noticed that they are showing signs of not just ‘supporting’ moslems, but actually have an attitude of adulation and admiration towards them. There is a meme going around with an image of our old friend, that lady of easy virtue, Lady Liberty, with her arm around the shoulder of a burka-clad female Moslem, saying “All Are Welcome.” Yes, it’s come to that. I wonder how Jewish Emma Lazarus, who composed that mawkish ‘verse’ at the foot of the Liberty statue about the wretched refuse, etc., would react to this trend? Actually she would probably approve. The enemy of my enemy, etc., and all too often the perceived arch-enemy, as far as Jews are concerned, is the Anglo-American. Anything that damages us and diminishes our power is ‘good for the Jews’, so they believe.

And the left is increasingly stoking the fires of fear on the part of their minority allies/mascots. The media and the brainwashed leftist mobs are repeating this idea endlessly: minorities (especially the poor moslems), including and especially gays and trans-whatever, are in actual physical danger and are experiencing fear and panic, supposedly — fear of the mythical baying mobs of White ‘haters’ and ‘nazis’ who are lurking around every corner. This is more than just irresponsible, this fear-mongering lie. It amounts to a blood-libel against White Americans, promoting the false belief that Whites are out to commit pogroms against minorities, or that they in fact have done such things. I think they half-believe it themselves, having repeated this Big Lie so often.

This is as wrong and unjust and immoral as it can be. Why do we let it pass so often? Each and every person who perpetrates and passes on such lies is responsible for the mayhem that has happened so far, and that includes the malevolent media, and every ignoramus and fanatic on the left who repeats these canards and slanders. All of these miscreants bear some responsibility for violence that has happened, and for the violence that is undoubtedly still to come if they are allowed to persist.

They are inciting to violence. Their intent is to stoke the fires of hatred towards majority America; they smell blood, and they are openly referring to violence. Yet is it our side, despite the restraint we have shown so far, that is slandered as being ‘violent’ and hateful? Lies. More lies.

I was comparing notes with someone on what we are seeing on the Internet, and it seems that there are people posting almost word-for-word certain ideas: these people are posting to their supposed ‘gay and Muslim friends’ that they must be careful, but not be afraid to go out. Supposedly gays and moslems are cowering in fear behind closed doors, afraid to show their faces outdoors lest they be attacked or lynched or something. As if. As if anything remotely like that is happening, or has happened. These people are either delusional, or just paid disinformation agents. I tend towards believing the latter.

And P.S.: I don’t believe that many people, even millennials, have lots of ‘gay and Muslim friends’ at all; gays don’t make up that big a percentage of the population, contra Kinsey and the mendacious gay activists. Nor do Moslems, as of now. But yet everyone has ‘gay and Muslim friends’? Doubtful, to say the least.

Just another day in the realm of the Lie Machine. But we mustn’t shrug it off; things are escalating, and I have a sense of foreboding. We need to be in prayer, and if we’re not the praying kind, we need to do all we can to stop the momentum of the Lie Merchants and the instigators. Some say that President Trump has already done a lot in that respect — and in some ways he has, but he is in fact leading to a kind of coming to a head. And none of us knows exactly how this will play out.

Which God? Which America?

I’ve been out of touch with what passes for news lately, though I can’t avoid hearing what people are saying in the ‘real world.’ More pressing concerns closer to home have had me preoccupied these last couple of months, and that’s part of the reason for my lack of activity here.

When  I was searching for a live discussion thread on the Inaugural ceremonies I found that Free Republic seemed to be down. I wondered if the usual suspects were behind that or if they were just overwhelmed by the numbers of people who, like me, were looking for live coverage and discussion. And no, I couldn’t access C-Span coverage either.

Online, wherever the lefties (especially the young ones) were hanging out, there was a real fawn-fest going on, with everybody seeming to be teary-eyed over the exit of their Idol from the White House. Now, these are people who are not usually likely to invoke ‘God’, and they usually choke on the word ‘America’ but they were asking God to ‘bless America’. That phony piety was enough to make me choke, but I had to ask just which God are they invoking? And just which ‘America’ are they asking their god to ‘bless’? Certainly not the same God as the one I serve, and the America they are asking a blessing on is not my America, and not in fact the historic nation (and people) known as America.

The lefties in their various mutated forms  (and they are not the left of the old days) no longer inhabit the same universe as the rest of us, and I don’t know how this can all be resolved without a great deal of turmoil and upheaval, most of which they seem to be courting and lusting after. But it must be resolved one way or another; the present state of affairs can’t continue as it is now. I think most people sense that, even if they don’t “know” it.

I realize these are not original observations by any means; I don’t seem to have much wisdom or wit to impart. I do hope I can somehow get back in the swing of blogging provided somebody wants to read my ramblings, but there are still personal concerns that claim most of my time and attention. But if good intentions matter, maybe I will get back to blogging regularly.

 

UVa Profs: stop quoting Jefferson

The ‘Old Dominion’ continues to decay. The usual academic suspects are now, along with their brainwashed adolescent charges, clamoring for the president of UVa to stop quoting Thomas Jefferson. 469 ignoramuses and budding totalitarians signed a petition to this effect.

The school’s president, Teresa Sullivan, said the following, which prompted the demands:

“Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that University of Virginia students ‘are not of ordinary significance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes,’” Ms. Sullivan wrote in the email. “I encourage today’s U.Va. students to embrace that responsibility.”

The students and their academic allies cited Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves, along with his ”racist” beliefs, as reasons for banning his words.

Was Jefferson a ”racist”? We all know that term has been overused and has become so fluid and subjective that it is almost impossible to defend against the charge. As someone at VDare, perhaps, once said, to be accused of racism is to be convicted. It is not possible to prove a negative, especially when one’s accusers are ‘POCs’ or White leftists; both groups are immune to reason, facts, and common sense.

I see that Steve Sailer has a thread on this story, and to my (pleasant) surprise, the comments are mostly defensive of Jefferson, which sad to say is becoming more and more rare, as even many “conservatives”, ethnopatriots, and race-realists (so-called) are willing to pile on and baldly state that Jefferson was a ‘hypocrite’, a ‘race-mixer’ or even a slave-rapist. Examples? I can’t easily locate a specific thread, but I’ve seen such comments on AmRen (a site I long since abandoned, for various reasons) and on the OD blog, where at least one regular commenter pointedly condemns Jefferson at every possible occasion. And no one disputes what he says. I haven’t commented at OD since the comments are now under the Disqus system, so the slanders go unanswered.

Some of you may remember that I used to try to counter all attacks on Jefferson, even attempting to comment on AmRen, where my comments rarely got approved. And I have tried to defend Jefferson not just because I am a Jefferson descendant — it’s personal — but because I believe in his innocence of the slanders made against his character. I realize I am out of step with the cynicism of the times regarding all the Founding generation, and that defending Jefferson is often sneered at as being a ‘patriotard’ and the like, but the fact is there is not any definitive proof that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings’ or any slave’s brood of children. Some of the Hemings descendants say they have Jefferson DNA according to tests, but the DNA is not that of Thomas Jefferson, but just of a Jefferson male. That could include many possible sires.

I used to cite a link from Ashbrook Center, Ashland University, which offered the counter-evidence to the Jefferson slander, but it seems they’ve taken that page down. Why? Too politically incorrect?

A link on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog which dealt with that subject, and offered an argument against the claim from an informed commenter, is likewise gone. Why? The comment was from the Jefferson Family historian, Herbert Barger. Why did the Britannica people not consider that this was valuable information?

There’s obviously an effort across the board to re-write history in a way that discredits the Founders, and by extension, the Founding stock of this country and their progeny. Us. Why are so many of ‘us’ going along with this, and even aiding and abetting it?

There used to be an older gentleman, another Jefferson descendant, who tried to combat these stories online, but maybe he has passed on now. I used to try to take up the slack and answer as many as I could, but it seems such a vain effort, and I have begun to feel that if nobody else cares to preserve Jefferson’s name and his legacy, then why should I waste my time and energy? Yet here I am doing it again. I guess I am a sucker for lost causes.

But back to the original charge of those ‘scholars’ at UVa and wherever this kind of nonsense is being encouraged: was Jefferson a ”racist”, whatever that means on any given day? He was definitely a ‘realist’ in that he (being something of a scientist and “HBD” man in his time) observed and noted the many differences between the two races, black and White, and he predicted — accurately — that the two races would not be able to live side-by-side in harmony, and that it would all end in conflict.  In other words, he was a truth-teller. And that’s the crime nowadays.

And Jefferson’s statement that the students of UVa would be those who would govern the country in the future is unfortunately true — and frightening, given the obvious fact that those ignorant and fanatical misfits will in fact be in charge one day, if we go on that long. I think that reality would dismay Thomas Jefferson if he had but known.

Big revelations no surprise

The Drudge headline about the Enquirer’s ‘stunning revelations’ about Hillary gives the impression that these stories are something new. In fact, as most people are aware the rumors and allegations have been circulating for decades. So the ‘revelations’ are about as surprising as Shep Smith’s admission that he is gay. It’s old news.

Will it have any effect on voters? I can’t imagine those who are supporting Hillary turning against her, as that demographic is already fully programmed with the pro-homosexual belief system; they can only see it as a plus that Hillary may be ‘gay.’ Being ‘gay’ is now hailed as an act of ‘bravery and courage’, though how it is ”courageous” to be what one is supposedly born to be is unclear to me. According to the ‘gay gene’ believers, homosexuals have no choice in the matter; they are simply genetically gay. No matter; things don’t have to make sense to the PC crowd; their brains are full of all kinds of conflicting beliefs and contradictions. They don’t even see that, so lost are they.

So Hillary’s core supporters will not turn against her, but will likely hail her for these ‘revelations’, and/or accuse those who are reporting the story of being ‘homophobic bigots.’ She will be twice as heroic because she might become more of a victim, and all the world loves a victim today.

Will some of the liberal ‘evangelicals’ who are horrified by voting for Trump be shocked by these stories, and change their vote from Hillary to Trump? No, those people are usually pro-”tolerance” already. Many of the churches, even some of the more conservative, historically Calvinistic churches, are adopting gay-friendly policies; “love the sinner, hate only the sin”, as their spiritual exemplar Gandhi said.

I’ve said before that there are no social conservatives left anymore; that may be a slight exaggeration. There are, however, vanishingly few Christians, let alone non-Christians, who object to homosexuality or any kind of sexual misbehavior anymore. The GOP, which was for a while the home of something called the Christian Right, is for the most part willing to welcome homosexuals. What kind of resistance did the political right put up against same-sex ‘marriage’?

As the GOP tolerates the presence of people like Lindsey Graham, obviously they are not going to suddenly go all moralistic about a story like this one about Hillary. No doubt there are quite a few closeted homosexuals in the Republican Party; remember Larry Craig? Then there was Denny Hastert, whose history was more reprehensible because it involved minors. So no, the Republicans don’t have room to throw stones here. They too have become corrupt and compromised.

One charge that could be made here with the Hillary allegations is hypocrisy; why has she not openly announced her sexual preferences, if true? It can’t be because of “homophobia” or fear of an intolerant public, because society has become almost infatuated with gays, thanks to concerted efforts by homosexual ”activists” and a complicit media. So why would anyone not want to capitalize on their ”special” sexuality, in a perverse age that hails such things as ‘heroic’? Why not cash in on that capital and make use of it? There’s no reason to fear coming out these days, while remaining closeted could be seen as not just hypocritical, but cowardly.

But not to worry; I don’t think this will change things one way or the other.

Harvard Republican Club rejects Trump

I see that the Harvard Republican Club has refused to endorse Donald Trump. According to their own statement, this is the first time in 128 years that they have rejected the Republican nominee for the presidency.

The statement spells out their reasons for taking this unprecedented position.

Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans. The rhetoric he espouses –from racist slander to misogynistic taunts– is not consistent with our conservative principles, and his repeated mocking of the disabled and belittling of the sacrifices made by prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and Purple Heart recipients is not only bad politics, but absurdly cruel.”

There’s a lot of hyperventilating exaggeration here, all laced with political correctness or ‘virtue signalling’, if you prefer.

Our” values? “our” conservative principles? What universe do these self-important adolescents inhabit? Not mine, and not the same universe as all previous generations of Americans.

Some of the comments online about this Republican Club statement imply that the members of this Club are ‘elitists’, probably old-line WASPs, because everyone knows that is who goes to Hahvahd, right? Well, maybe not. Harvard, like just about every university in this corrupt society, courts diversity. They have many special fellowship and scholarship programs set up specifically for ‘diversity’ of one sort or another, probably everything from LGBTQ-whatever to immigrants, (especially illegal immigrants), for Womyn, for American Indians. I think the percentages of old-stock Americans, especially WASPs, at Harvard are dwindling all the time.

The statement by the Club is a collective one, with no spokesman or leader named or quoted. From a 2013 list of some members’ names it appears that it’s the usual ‘diverse’ and multicultural cast of characters, as is found on just about every campus in this country, thanks to mandatory diversity admissions. For example, a Jewish name, a Chinese name, a Hindu name, and a couple of American-sounding names that may or may not belong to White students. In other words, this statement is not coming from an all-White ‘elite’ club as some are insinuating.

Harvard is not what it used to be.  In fact, every American institution, even those going back to colonial days like Harvard, is not what it started out to be, nor even what it was 30 years (or less) in the past.

This ritual denunciation of Donald Trump is just what would be expected, considering the source. It is not an indication of anything except the callow opinions of indoctrinated millennials in a very left-wing institution.

Generational attitudes

I came across this at Morgoth’s Review, on a discussion thread. I have excerpted the relevant part of the comment:

“…one study has shown that half of Trump’s supporters are aged between forty five and sixty four, with another thirty four percent over sixty five and less than two percent aged younger than thirty. Interestingly, slightly over half are women. That older people should remember a ‘golden age’ when America was great , in the 1950’s perhaps, and be somewhat preoccupied with their own mortality, should be no surprise to anyone. Regarding race survival going forward it’s younger people who need to be awakened , the problem being overcoming the boundless optimism of youth and their having known nothing better than die-versity.”

All emphasis above is mine.

There is apparently not a link to the study mentioned, but the study’s findings comport with what I’ve cited here in the past. Meanwhile, I await any facts or data that refute what’s been stated here. Those who want to fix all blame on baby boomers (who apparently make up over half of Trump’s supporters) will continue to do so, in the tradition of leftists who ignore reality and keep repeating the same unsubstantiated claims.

The truth is at stake here; it’s not just a matter of intergenerational squabbling — which we can’t afford to have.