In poll after poll and in vote after vote what is happening all across the West is that youth is turning away from the Establishment. It is most marked among young Western men but it is also happening with women. Meanwhile, it is getting to be that the older the voter, the more likely to be Left…including among older voters who used to vote for ostensible Right parties in the past. None of this is too shocking – the youngsters see a dying world and don’t like it – and young white people especially don’t like the part they are being assigned in it: the evil ones who must be punished for the alleged sins of their elders and ancestors. For the older folks (call it 60 and up), it also makes sense they are going Left – the Left is defending the system the old folks grew up in and in which they became well off. They still watch TV news, of course, and sincerely believe the drivel put out there. But it is to youth that we look – because the future belongs to whoever is there. That ain’t you and me, fellow old folks!
Today I saw a video clip where King Charles III of Great Britain, visiting Canada, issued a “land acknowledgement” before his speech before the Canadian parliament. Basically, this was the King asserting that Britain and all her works were a crime. If he had an ounce of courage he would have abdicated before making such a hateful statement. But, he’s old and this is what the Ruling Class told him he has to say and that its an evil statement is neither here nor there…it is how he gets to remain King. Nothing quite so typifies the Boomer, does it? But one thinks about the heroic people of Britain’s past and you almost weep over it all – whatever one might wish to say about Sir Garnet Wolseley, when he burned Kumasi it was to clear out a nest of slave-traders. Today Charles would probably go there and apologize for that.
Another thing I saw today was a news report that 80% of Britain’s Down Syndrome babies are being aborted. One of the great achievements of Christianity was to end the practice of killing “unfit” children…but with the destruction of the Christian character of the West the barbarism has returned. Putting these two things together made be rather disgusted with quite a lot of things. I don’t want to be allied, for instance, with people who kill their children or insult their own past. And I don’t want the domestic versions of these people to have a say in how we’re governed. You see, I quite like living in a world where I have rights and I carry out my responsibilities and my property is protected, criminals are punished and weirdos aren’t allow to destroy the public square. Basically, I’ll see how Trump does: if he’s able to push through the necessary reforms, then I’ll be ok. But if the Establishment manages to stop him, then I’m seriously looking for a Sulla or Caesar.
And in that, I’ll be siding with youth – because youth has very little patience with or respect for the “norms” or the Establishment. They see through the scam. They are also, though, badly educated so they do, from time to time, fall for other cons as long as they are anti-Establishment cons. This is a problem and I’ll see my goal – if it comes to it – to guide youth away from these aberrations. And they can be guided it: I know it because I’ve already done it. They do listen to reason. You’d better have it all down pat! Answer for every objection! But if you do have knowledge and some patience you can reach this discontented youth…which is filled with a desire for freedom and is generous to a fault. But I won’t fight them on things I view as non-critical. They are youth and it is their world they are building. I offer my advice and my encouragement, but I do not offer myself as a leader. They’ll have to find their own.
I do see this as a time future historians will view as the breaking point – the end of one era and the start of another.
Ancient: European and Near-Eastern civilization to the Muslim conquest of Syria (638).
Medieval: Muslim conquest of Syria to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648).
Modern: Treaty of Westphalia until today.
But the Modern Era is rather done. Nobody believes in the basic assumptions any longer. Too many lies and too many crimes…and, in the end, it didn’t even work. We see outrages against basic human decency and civil rights and we joke that the Constitution (the highest human expression of the Modern Era) will break out of its case any minute now and save us…but those charged with applying the Constitution are too stupid and corrupt to defend it. So youth sees it as useless and seeks something else…just as they seek for something else regarding all major issues and events. I don’t envy them their task if we do ultimately fail – and let us hope that this last, desperate hope we elected last November turns the tide.
Blogs For Victory 
This may be relative to your post:
I’ve been pondering of late the post-WWII existence of neo-Nazi and other overtly racist organizations and I’m starting to wonder if these were a Deep State operation? I mean, lets face it: in 1945, Nazism was pretty thoroughly discredited. Even if one was a racist and anti-Semite, it was clear that the Nazi program didn’t work…Germans weren’t inherently superior people destined to rule the world. So, into the ash heap of history it goes…but, it didn’t.
Naturally, a lot of former Nazis did try to whitewash themselves – initially this was done to be able to obtain employment (especially in government) and to obtain pensions (the SS having been declared a criminal organization by the Allied Powers, members of it – including the Waffen-SS – were not entitled to pensions). They wrote books and articles absurdly claiming they were only about fighting Communism. Fine. Whatever. But after a couple decades we started to see people actually advocating for Nazism, and their main contention was Holocaust denial…the Nazis weren’t bad guys, at all! The Holocaust didn’t happen! Hitler was just unfairly maligned by Churchill! Dresden! The Waffen-SS was a multi-national European force trying to save Europe! Just weird that this could pop up like that especially as the witnesses were all still alive.
I thought and I thought and wondered about it all and then I remembered Reinhard Gehlen.
Most people have never heard of the guy. He was a German army intelligence officer in WWII who rose to the rank of Major General and was in charge of assessing the power of the Red Army. Hitler fired him in April of 1945 when his reports showed the Germans had no chance in the coming fight for Berlin. After the war, he turned himself over to the USA and offered us his intelligence files on the Red Army…and this was a huge bonanza for us. The Germans had an extensive spy network in the USSR (naturally) and had masses of data about personnel, weapons, capabilities, etc. Naturally, we partnered up with him – and, to be fair, he hadn’t been directly responsible for any war crimes (his job just was assessing Russian power…not working out train schedules for the Holocaust or such like). In the end, we massively bankrolled Gehlen and while his organization did provide some very useful stuff for us, it was also shot through with former Nazis and Soviet spies (the Russians also had a massive spy network in Nazi Germany which Himmler’s SS was very poor at discovering because while the Gestapo was ruthless it was never properly organized for counter-intelligence purposes; these spies remained undiscovered in 1945 and Gehlen was friendly to them from wartime work). What I’m wondering is if Gehlen and his people – along with Soviet agents in Gehlen’s organization and the CIA – didn’t set up Neo-Nazi groups to attract people they wanted to remove from the overall political equation?
Like this: you can be a patriot and such and you’ll be fine…but if you get even slightly tarred with the Nazi brush, you’re finished…you’ll never get a government, corporate or education position. You’ll never get published by mainstream outfits…you’ll be a hated political freak. What better way to get rid of people who didn’t like the Establishment than to sucker them into associating with Neo-Nazis? I got this idea because in post-WWII Germany several political parties arose which were German patriotic in character and they held to a position that the allied powers should all evacuate Germany which was to become a neutral State. These parties naturally attracted former German military people and, of course, former Nazis. But that shouldn’t have been the end of it – the post-WWII German army was largely commanded by former Nazi generals and the German government was shot through from top to bottom with former Nazis. But these political parties which challenged the post-WWII settlement were all eventually tagged as being inherently Nazi and were banned…like someone set them up to fail to make certain that the German patriots never got a real voice.
It was pretty neat – anyone who challenges the Establishment: Nazi! You think about what happened in Rhodesia and now is happening in South Africa: they were white supremacists! You know: just like the Nazis! Except the Nazis weren’t white supremacists…Poles are as white as Krauts and the Nazis considered them subhuman. Nazism is German Supremacist. Somehow since WWII this has been shifted to White Supremacist…White Supremacists are Nazis and Nazis are White Supremacists. Interchangeable. Thus anyone you can tag as either Nazi or White Supremacist is heir of Hitler and thus totally unacceptable in the political world. And was Rhodesia White Supremacist? Or was it something else? Even supposing the Rhodesians were racists (not borne out by the fact that they welcomed Africans into their armed forces – they gave black people guns; not something a racist is likely to do), were they really trying to support whites…or was it they were trying to defend their homes and towns from people who would take it all away from them?
Whatever the truth was, Rhodesia was tagged as nothing but racist – you know, Nazi – and had to be destroyed. Can’t have a successful, Western society existing in Africa. It would look bad, you see? If the damned crackers are out there being peaceful and prosperous then it kinda indicates some major flaw in the other African countries which at the time were universally ruled by corrupt tyrants. The old “one man, one vote, one time” thing of the immediate post-Colonial world. After Rhodesia, it was the turn of South Africa. Nazis! Have to go. Right away. No real transition period. No real thought about what comes after – get Mandela out of that cell and make him President! Right now!!!
So, I think it over and I do wonder if the whole project was Deep State? I mean, after all: we didn’t have to wreck Rhodesia. We could have worked with the Rhodesian government to help build up Rhodesia’s black population in education and property with steadily increasing black political participation as the black population was integrated into the Rhodesian community. Wouldn’t that have been a bit wiser? That is, wiser than turning Rhodesia over to Mugabe, a Marxist teacher who never produced anything of value. Why wasn’t it at least tried? Could be lots of reasons – but once any other path was rejected, then the obstacle to the chosen course must be demonized…and we have this handy program developed in Germany ready to go. Same thing with Vietnam. French Algeria. Kenya. On and on and on and on and it all follows the same template…whomever stands athwart the radical Leftist leader of a “Liberation Movement” is a Nazi demon who must be destroyed.
Funny, huh?
Gabriel Canaan writes, in a thoughtful piece in American Thinker, about the issue of birthright citizenship.
In it he discusses the Supreme Court ruling on Wong Kim Ark, in which “the Court held that, because the petitioner had been born to parents lawfully residing in the United States, he had been born within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States, and therefore at birth was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. He was thus born a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.“
His article goes on, based on this ruling, which he cites and quotes in part. Yet he does not address the real issue, which is whether the ruling was correct.
Yet legal residence in a nation does not automatically mean a person then owes allegiance to that nation. “Under the protection of” is one thing, but loyalty (allegiance) to the host nation is something else entirely, as is “under the jurisdiction of”. One may have inborn allegiance in a legal sense to a nation by being born a citizen, or he may choose to replace that allegiance with one to an adopted country but this is a choice, a declarative act, not assumed because of the place of residency.
I think Canaan illustrates the confusion surrounding the concept of “under the jurisdiction”. He cites a 1884 case, Elk v. Wilkins, and its ruling that “The Court ruled that they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, on the ground that “jurisdiction” in the Citizenship Clause meant complete jurisdiction, which implied that prior allegiance to another nation (or, in this case, a tribe) which has not been revoked or renounced meant that the person did not have “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States.” (The issue of native born citizenship of tribal members was addressed by a subsequent act of Congress stating that Indians born on reservations are U.S. citizens at birth.)
He then refers to a different case, from 1893, which did not address the matter of children born to people here with or without permission but was about a Chinese national who arrived in the United States as an adult and who then, in spite of the passing of the Geary Act, which required Chinese in the United States to carry a Certificate of Residence, a precursor of the green card system, to prove that they had legally entered, never applied for such a certificate and was, therefore, here illegally. The only relevance of Fong Yue Ting v. United States lies in its comment on the legal status of non-resident or unlawfully-present aliens: “while they are subject to our laws, they remain outside the government’s “complete jurisdiction.”
This does not address the matter of whether or not a person who has not revoked or renounced his allegiance to his native country has, by dint of merely living legally in the United States, become fully under its “complete jurisdiction”.
However, 12 years later, the Court ruled that if someone is living in the United States with the permission of the United States that means that the person “owes allegiance” to the United States, which is an assumption of intent of the individual and not a matter of objective law. The ruling on Wong Kim Ark is based, in its actual wording, on the assertion that ““subjects of the Emperor of China…are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here” . In other words, these people OWE ALLEGIANCE to the United States, not that they personally feel such allegiance or have made such a commitment. That is, legally their allegiance is to their native country until they revoke or renounce that allegiance in favor of formal allegiance to the United States. To say someone “owes allegiance” describes a moral debt, not a legal status, which is conveyed either by birth or through a sworn statement to that effect.
This single concept appears to lie at the heart of the confusion and conflict about birthright citizenship. People who cite “United States v Wong Kim Ark” never question the authority of that Court to determine that if a person “owes allegiance” to a nation that has given him permission to live there that means he has no prior and existing allegiance to another nation. And this is the core of the argument about the meaning of the term “under the jurisdiction of”.
My personal criterion for determining the jurisdiction of a person living here is based on which nation would intervene in the case of a problem or conflict. For example, if someone living here with a permanent residency visa (“green card”) goes on vacation to Italy and has a legal problem there, does he turn to the American Embassy or the embassy of his native country?
Another example: When a man of my acquaintance, a South American man who had lived in the United States for about 12 years under legal work visas and who had applied for permanent resident status and had completed all the requirements and expected final approval within weeks, suddenly died the consulate of his native country immediately became involved in dealing with helping his family back home deal with the details surrounding a death. This embassy asserted his country’s jurisdiction over him because he was still a citizen of that country.
I think that the United States v Wong Kim Ark ruling has to be re-examined and overruled, based on its false assertion that a person living legally in the United States actually does have primary allegiance to this country and is therefore under its jurisdiction. In the meantime, this very thoughtful and well-written article is still, in my opinion, incorrect and inaccurate, arriving at false conclusions.
That’s it very much: you can’t just be here, legally or otherwise: you must be American. In the context of the times – 1868 – there just wasn’t an issue to be addressed vis immigrants. It took weeks to travel between the USA and other nations and the huge flood of immigration was still in the future. Ellis Island wasn’t opened until 1892. The government was trying to ensure that the former Confederate States didn’t try to lawyer their way out of providing citizenship to the freed slaves – which project they were all trying by various means at the time. So, all persons born in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction thereof – and a black guy born in 1868 met this requirement – were citizens of the USA and the State wherein they resided. A Chinese woman living in San Francisco without citizenship papers did not in 1868 give birth to an American citizen…no more than the wife of the French Ambassador give birth to an American citizen.
It is even more so here in the modern world – where you can hop on a plane when you’re 39 weeks pregnant, fly to the USA in a few hours and then give birth. That is not an American citizen, even if you entered the USA legally. It is patently obvious that the authors of the 14th intended no such thing…and they lived in an age when travel was starting to become rapid with the building of railroads and steamships (the first steamships were already operating passenger service from the UK to the USA and had cut the travel time in half – from 40 to 20 days) so they knew that it was becoming more possible for a pregnant woman to make the trip…but they didn’t address the matter because you don’t defend your laws against absurd interpretations.
Jeff Childers writes this morning about the aging of the Dem Congress, touching, along the way, on the deaths of some on the Dem side of the House with side referrals to their vaxx status, but then there is this comment:
The reason for this is simple: Most in the party have no “guiding ideology or principle”.
The party is supposed to be the Left’s toehold in American politics, giving the International Left a presence, though diluted, in our system, from which it could theoretically continue to build its power.
Once upon a time, in a land now far far away (the old United States of America) children were taught to love their country and respect its foundational principles and charter, so the Left had to tread lightly, doing incremental incursions into our Constitutional form of governance. A little expansion of federal powers here (Social Security) to get people started thinking of the federal government as a source of benefits, a little more there (Medicaid) and a SCOTUS ruling putting the feds in the middle of the abortion issue (Roe v Wade) and then, finally, a Socialist president promoting federal authority over health care, and the Left was starting to pick up some velocity in its efforts to take over the country as it successfully eroded and undermined those old patriotic principles and ideals through its successful parallel degradation of our educational system.
But they had to do this though the efforts of the Democrat Party, and could not openly declare the underlying ideology of Leftism, so they had to figure out how to get people to act to destroy their country while thinking they were “saving” it. So they presented their agendas as proofs of moral superiority combined with appeals to egos—“we are the only ones smart enough to act to do great and moral things and also preserve democracy”. Instead of inciting mobs demanding raw power, their mobs demanded various illusions of virtue as described to them as the “right” to pathological selfishness (abortion), sexual self-indulgence and attacks on various entities defined for them as “evil” (police).
The problem with this is that it results in a party controlled by people who are, themselves, controlled by the flimsiest of foundational principles. Being driven by pursuit of illusion—the illusion of moral superiority, the illusion of higher intellect—-they naturally start to flounder when these illusions start to fall apart because the individuals in the party are not bound together by a unifying, solid, POLITICAL ideology but by how the party makes them FEEL.
So now the party is falling apart because its most visible members are not pursuing true Leftist governance but merely power as they see it benefitting them and their personal agendas, most if not all of which are ego-centered. The closest any Democrat has come to stating an actual POLITICAL ideology is that old scold, Bernie Sanders, with his tired old Socialist jibber-jabber that still only skims across the surface of actual governing principles. Every other person in the party now striving for public acknowledgement is only looking for ego gratification, picking up an old protest sign left lying around to wave as an alleged political platform but never really getting beyond a few cliches.
It has basically become a loosely-aligned group of malcontents and misfits, based on being AGAINST an Invented Other, appealing mostly to personality disorders, resentments and hostility. And, of course, easily herded sheeple, controlled by vague irrational fear that can be directed toward a designated target and inflamed by a complicit Agenda Media.
Thinking about it, this probably the basis of Hogg’s anger – don’t sleep on that kid: he has all the makings of a Robespierre or Lenin in him. He might be badly educated (and is), he might be a bit stupid (he is) but so were Robespierre and Lenin…what they lacked in intellect and ability they made up for in ruthlessness in the pursuit of power and their ideological ends. Hogg is looking around his Democrat party and seeing pretty much what you see: ancient time-servers who’s only real interest is in amassing power to amass wealth. The Party has now taken his measure and is clearly terrified of him – so they are trying to force him out. He is the man to split the Left – as Lenin did – in order to have a political organism entirely loyal to him. Short term, good news for us…but long term if he’s not stopped it could be bad news for us. I’ve said our choice might eventually be between Lenin and Franco…Hogg is our Lenin but I’ve yet to identify a Franco among our ranks. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that!
I didn’t read “terrified” as much as “what a pain in the butt” but I’ll consider your take on Hogg. My own was that the leaders thought he would be a good hood ornament with the message of “see how tuned in we are to young people” without considering that he might not have much appeal to young people at all and might want to actually get behind the wheel. Lenin had a message, an ideology, an actual outline for governing. Hogg just has grievances and histrionics and a massive, overweening, ego-based perception of his own specialness—not something that ages well.
In my best Gomer Pyle voice—surprise, surprise
Also “surprise, surprise”, never heard of it. And I’m fairly well informed. I looked into it – essentially founded by Warren Burger and whatever intent he might have had for it (to improve professionalism in the Judiciary) it is clearly now a haven of the Deep State. Under law and custom, of course, judges and counsel are not supposed to speak of cases outside the courtroom but what is to stop these guys from chatting about whatever they wish? No matter whether they discuss exact cases or not, it is easy for those interested in an ideological outcome to take control of such organizations and guide their membership in a certain direction. Nobody wants to be the “out” guy in such a place, right? Looking at membership and staff, not finding a lot of people who would be sympathetic to Trump’s MAGA agenda…giving us a clear indication of why it looks like the Judiciary is trying to carve out a Trump Exception to Article II.
I can’t imagine anyone with the proven spinelessness of Roberts being able to go against his club buddies. I wonder if this association might be grounds for impeachment. They wanted to go after Thomas for hanging out with a rich guy who never had a case in front of the Court, and here we have the Chief Justice hanging out with another justice on the down-low along with a bunch of radical Leftists. I’d like to see a deep dive into Roberts rulings compared to the interests of this group.
Did you read the whole Bad Kitty Unleashed thread on X about these people, their connections, etc.? One of the things she(?) has revealed is that Boasberg failed to list two of his prior jobs when he was being questioned before being confirmed as a judge, both of which tie him to this secretive organization.
So lawyers who belong to the group then go to court in front of judges who belong to the group and if there is a serious challenge it is heard by the Supreme Court, whose chief justice and another justice are also part of the group.
“Judge Beryl Howell was nominated to the American Inns of Court for her outstanding work sending hundreds of Trump-supporters to prison for months and years for non-violent crimes on January 6, 2021!” Oh, and “her leadership during the pandemic was extraordinary” gushes Judge Boasberg.
I keep going back to the fact that KBJ was brought forth to the world via Paul Ryan, her relative by marriage. He knew her – he knew, that is, that she’s a mindless Bolshevik ideologue who’s rulings are entirely based upon the Leftist need of the moment. And here he was, introducing her and lauding her to the skies and she sailed through from appointment to appointment all the way up to the Supreme Court. Had he just told us, she wouldn’t be there.
“Hey, I love this lady. She’s part of my family. But on any Court, she’s just going to rule the way the Democrats want.”
That would have stopped her. Or at least ensured that no GOPer voted for her. But, no: “she’s a great and fair judge of high intellect”…a flat out lie.
And you wonder: how many people in there are there because everyone conspired to lie about what they are? I’m not against KBJ being who she is. It is her right to believe whatever she wants and to try to implement it…but neither she nor anyone else ever told the truth about her. They all lied to make sure this absolutely mindless ideological hack could sit on our highest court and make rulings against law, decency and logic. For decades. She might eventually be in a majority writing an opinion to strip us of our basic human rights. Also, was Roberts lied about? Supposedly a Conservative originalist, right? But is he really? Has he actually been? Are we supposed to believe that the vetting process missed the fact that when confronted with an obviously unconstitutional thing desired by the Left, his attitude was to try to split the baby and give the Left half the unconstitutional thing wanted?
King Charles III of Great Britain, visiting Canada, issued a “land acknowledgement” before his speech before the Canadian parliament.
Charles has always been a wuss I can’t think of a single thing he has ever done that has made me respect him. Well, aside from his criticism of modern British architecture, which was spot on. But his treatment of Diana was despicable and I still can’t think of him as a king. He was a whiny sniveling boy who turned into a whiny sniveling man, so it is no surprise to see him pandering to anti-British sentiment, especially if he thinks he is standing up to Trump by supporting the current Leftist Canadian government.
No honor at all. We’ll see if his son is made of better stuff – being Diana’s son might mean a bit of backbone is there somewhere. But Charles is not only insulting his own British people, he’s insulting his own mother. Like I said, a man of honor would have refused to make that statement. Sure, the King is required to have all public statements approved by the government…and in Canada, that means by the Canadian government. But that bit could have been left out. No power on Earth compels the King to say a particular thing. He could have argued the point and if it came to it, the parliament could have refused to let him speak. But, nope…just said it, as if the heroes of Britain never lived.
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel is back with a message; Europe could be ‘destroyed’ unless they continue to allow millions of ‘non-Europeans’ to flood the bloc.
Maybe she could clarify this by explaining just what SHE means by “destroyed”. A lot of people would think that reducing a native population to minority status, losing centuries of culture and a massive change to national identity might just qualify as “destroyed”—not to mention turning one of the world’s most law-abiding countries into a lawless free-for-all
When they tell us their goals and explain their agendas, we have to pay attention.
Yep – and it starts with education. Not for nothing was the primary Liberal focus in the 19th and early 20th century the termination of religious schools, especially Catholic schools. People tend to forget that even in the darkest parts of the Dark Ages, if the Church found a youth with some promise, they’d get him an education. Naturally as an attempt to build an educated priesthood, but from these efforts eventually came the people who created the Renaissance, revived Roman law and kicked off the scientific revolution. But they were still all imbued with Christian thought – even the heretics! There was absolute right and absolute wrong and you knew the difference and were required to do the right thing if at all possible. Liberals hated that. So, in country after country they progressively eliminated religious schooling and started to imbue the youth with their ideals…that there is no absolute right or wrong, there is no God, that the whole Christian project was negative and needed to be replaced.
And here we are.
Jeff Childers describes Trump’s agenda and successes after describing the FDR cabinet’s united efforts to expand the size, scope and power of the federal government: “It’s a forceful return to a constitutional baseline, wielded like a chainsaw carving right through the post-New Deal history books.”