Who are these Millennials?
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.
As for the video, I know this is the reputation but one that I have no personal experience of.
With Libertarians having defected to the Obama side of politics, there are only we few conservatives left to stand up for the traditional values of the West. It has been clear for a while that it is only in the development of technology that America is a world leader, and it anyway all gets stolen by its enemies as fast as it gets invented. As for social values, the United States has had nothing to offer the rest of us since the 1990s. What we see is the transformation of the specific Judeo-Christian values that made Western civilisation free, prosperous and ascendant into the enemy. They may only be comics, but their storylines no doubt mirror the values of the people who read them. They will yet make it illegal to deny global warming, and who knows what after that.
AND CONTINUING: This is Judge Nepolitano from Reason Mag in October 2012 – the centre of libertarian thought if such a thing can exist – who could not choose between Obama and Romney. The article is The Failures of Obama and Romney. This is how a libertarian looked at the last presidential election:
President Obama is a failure as a president, and Gov. Romney is a failure as a candidate.
When he took office, Obama told the press that if he couldn’t cure the economic mess he inherited from President George W. Bush in four years, he wouldn’t deserve a second term. I guess he didn’t anticipate making the mess worse.
When he took office, the federal government owed $11 trillion to its creditors; today it owes $16 trillion. When he took office, gasoline was running about $1.85 a gallon and today costs about $3.85 a gallon. This is price inflation that he directly caused by flooding the markets with cash, and that directly harms the middle class and the poor. Unemployment has remained north of 8 percent throughout his presidency for those still looking for a job, and about 16 percent if you count all able-bodied out-of-work adults, half of whom have stopped looking for work on his watch.
He supported radical fanatics in their takeovers of the governments of Libya and Egypt, even going so far as to help them kill Col. Gadhafi, the former Libyan strongman who was once our ally. In the process, they opened jails in Libya, and out came some of the same folks the U.S. government has been fighting against in the Middle East since 2001. Obama pushed from power Hosni Mubarak, the strongman in Cairo, and he was replaced by the head of a criminal organization that Obama’s own State Department has prohibited Americans from engaging with. (Query: If the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, how can the government help a foreign group and at the same time prohibit Americans from doing the same?)
In his lust to build a new world order in the Middle East, a goal for which he roundly criticized President George W. Bush, Obama has unilaterally, unconstitutionally and unlawfully killed Americans there. He killed Osama bin Laden when he could have captured him, and he let a mob kill our ambassador to Libya when he could have protected him — all to justify a value-free foreign policy that has no lasting friends or enemies, just fleeting interests. And he has killed thousands in foreign lands in secret, using drones that will soon find their way here and come back to haunt him.
Perhaps the next month will prove me wrong on Romney, but so far he is putting the electorate to sleep. I believe him when he claims to favor free market approaches to the nation’s economic ills, but I don’t believe him when he rails against big government and central economic planning, because his record belies his words. He is, of course, the father of the individual mandate — a totalitarian giant leap forward for the welfare state. And he has stated that if elected and re-elected, he will borrow money every year he is in office until the last.
When he was interviewed with the president on “60 Minutes” last week, I purposely did not watch or listen to the show. The next morning, I read the transcript of the interview and thought many of Romney’s answers were articulate and rational. Then I watched the same interview on tape and was bored nearly to death. Romney cannot put a fire in people’s bellies. The only reason he gives for voting for him is that he is not Obama — a reason that appeals to just under half the country, but is not enough to seal the deal. He needs to recognize that his audience for victory is not his former neighbors in Boston, but Joe Sixpack in the heartland.
He supports all of Obama’s killings in the Middle East, but claims he wants to control events there with a more muscular foreign policy. He cannot justify that view, along with the fact that it has failed and put us close to bankruptcy, to an electorate weary of wars. He rips into Obama’s borrowing, but overlooks his running mate’s voting record in Congress, which authorized all of it. At first he vowed to repeal Obamacare saying it is unconstitutional, and then he said he wants to keep the parts he likes, even if they are unconstitutional.
Can anyone get excited about Romney? Aside from a capitalistic attitude about the economy — as opposed to the president’s love of central economic planning — does anyone know what views he will embrace on Inauguration Day? Do you know anyone just aching to vote for him, the way conservatives were for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and progressives were for Obama in 2008? I do not know of such a person.
What do we do? The president’s failures are legion and have made all of us the worse for them. Gov. Romney’s failures are obvious and will give us four more years of Obama. Who says the system is not fixed?
If it was not blindingly obvious that Romney was oceans better than Obama their political judgement is empty and warped. Four years later, it would be interesting if they might just perhaps you know maybe think they might just possibly have been wrong.
Another day in the Middle East.
PALESTINIANS TORCH JEWISH SHRINE AMID ‘REVOLUTION’ CALLS…
Terrorist Disguised as Journalist Stabs IDF Soldier…
MEDIA FEARS: ‘Open season on reporters’…
Why shouldn’t they burn to the ground ancient historic sites in Israel when they do it in their own countries as well? They are stone age primitives with iPhones living in our midst. But you know what. This is strangely a sign of some kind of understanding between the two sides. It’s not much, but the Palestinian leader, Mahmud Abbas, said this:
“Illegal” arson “offends our culture and our religion and our morals.” He said a committee would investigate and the damage would be repaired.
On the other hand, he has not criticised randomly stabbing old ladies in the street so there other kinds of things that do not necessarily offend his culture, religion or morals.
Meanwhile in Western Europe. At a community Information Evening about Refugee Camp in a small District of City Kassel, population 4000. This is ONE Day before 800 immigrant will arrive. A German Politican, Walter Lübcke, is shown speaking to the gathered citizenry:
Here’s the translation:
@(:31) “it´s so great that this country (GERMANY) has values and these values make it really worth it to live in our country (for the refugees)” He continues, “We need to stand up for these basic values and anyone who decides not to STAND UP FOR THESE VALUES has the right to leave the country/state if they are not in agreement. It is the freedom of every German….(Audience boos….Audience member, “I can´t believe it – piss off/get outta here!)
Mr. Lübcke trys to continue, “We have freedom, we have a democratic system, the majority” – but is then drowned out in the general uproar. Audience member, “What democracy!?”
There is no making sense of this in terms of straightforward electoral politics. On whose behalf is this all happening and for what reason? Who in Europe wants this change and why do they want it? This is unprecedented in history, that a sovereign people have been sold down the river by its leaders.
Anywhere in American society where the left forms the majority, or even the near-majority, is a wreck. Who can analyse an entire culture, especially one as diverse as the American, but this seems generally right to me:
Once you recognize the influence of mental illness in shaping [left ideologies of all kinds], you find yourself nodding in agreement with Professor Glenn Reynolds: “I’m beginning to think that most lefty movements are just about broken people trying to manipulate the rest of us so they can feel good about their broken selves.”
Indeed, the “broken people” are everywhere now, piling up like debris scattered by a storm or a flood. Decades of societal breakdown — accompanied by a cultural decadence that celebrates divorce, bastardy, prostitution and every imaginable perversion as expressions of “diversity” — have produced a generation of young people who lack the ability to form healthy, normal relationships. The “broken people” demand that society be further re-structured to accommodate their depravity and helplessness. School children must be taught how to negotiate sexual consent, because there are no longer any moral customs to regulate sexual behavior, nor are any of these feral youth capable of romantic sentiment, having been raised in a godless carnival of cruelty devoid of anything that might plausibly be called love.
The stability of the era in which I was raised – the era of the Saturday Evening Post and its covers – is gone for all time. Being young today is a trial, whether male or female. Each has its horrors, related to each other, but impossible to avoid unless your luck really does hold out.
The headline’s in quotation marks because the activist-journalist at the SMH thinks this is a preposterous over-reaction: ‘The terrorist was shot and killed; that is the right response.’ The picture also comes with the story, with this text beneath it:
Palestinian mourners cry at the family house upon the arrival of the body of Amjad Jundi, 19, who was killed after stabbing a soldier on a bus in southern Israel. Photo: Nasser Nasser
The story is worth a read, however, since it is a more than usually one-eyed, one-sided approach of the kinds we find everywhere. A 15-year old was shot down in the street in Sydney just last week because he had just murdered an employee of the NSW police. No one in Australia is asking for our police rules of engagement in dealing with murderers while in the midst of a murderous rampage. Ruth Pollard, the activist-with-byline at the SMH, ought to try a similar kind of argument as a think-piece on her editorial page. I suspect even regular readers of Fairfax might find her just a tad idiotic even for their own fellow-leftist tastes.
UPDATE: From Brett Stevens via the Wall Street Journal discussing these murders on Israeli streets under the heading, Palestine: The Psychotic Stage. No answers in how to deal with the problem but some moral rebalancing about who are the murderers and who are being attacked in the street:
Treatises have been written about the media’s mind-set when it comes to telling the story of Israel. We’ll leave that aside for now. The significant question is why so many Palestinians have been seized by their present blood lust—by a communal psychosis in which plunging knives into the necks of Jewish women, children, soldiers and civilians is seen as a religious and patriotic duty, a moral fulfillment. Despair at the state of the peace process, or the economy? Please. It’s time to stop furnishing Palestinians with the excuses they barely bother making for themselves.
Above all, it’s time to give hatred its due. We understand its explanatory power when it comes to American slavery, or the Holocaust. We understand it especially when it is the hatred of the powerful against the weak. Yet we fail to see it when the hatred disturbs comforting fictions about all people being basically good, or wanting the same things for their children, or being capable of empathy.
Today in Israel, Palestinians are in the midst of a campaign to knife Jews to death, one at a time. This is psychotic. It is evil. To call it anything less is to serve as an apologist, and an accomplice.
Apologists and accomplices they may be, but they feel as moral and pleased with themselves as if they had just put fifty cents into a beggar’s hat.
You antediluvian reptile, you. You reactionary, backward neolithic barbarian, locked into your out-dated twentieth-century mindset. This is what our elites believe, and this is the world they are making for us from inside their gated communities. From The Atlantic: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely. This is the conclusion:
Closed borders are one of the world’s greatest moral failings but the opening of borders is the world’s greatest economic opportunity. The grandest moral revolutions in history—the abolition of slavery, the securing of religious freedom, the recognition of the rights of women—yielded a world in which virtually everyone was better off. They also demonstrated that the fears that had perpetuated these injustices were unfounded. Similarly, a planet unscarred by iron curtains is not only a world of greater equality and justice. It is a world unafraid of itself.
Merkel’s not insane. She, like others of her kind, just thinks that everyone should be allowed to go wherever others have been successful in creating wealth so that they too can have their fair share as well. What could possibly be wrong with that? What could be more just? A hundred years from now they will all look back at us and think how primitive we must have been.
[Via Instapundit]
I’m not sure if you are being diplomatic that you’re supposed to say it just because you think it. From the Donald: Trump: Merkel Insane.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s invitation to migrants to come to her country has been described as “insane” by U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has predicted more violence will follow in the country as a result.
Donald Trump, the Republican Party presidential front-runner, was talking about Mrs. Merkel’s invitation to migrants on the American political interview show, ‘Face The Nation’.
Mr Trump said: “I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming”. Instead he favours “a safe zone for people”, an idea on which he expanded.
He said: “Frankly, look, Europe is going to have to handle — but they’re going to have riots in Germany. What’s happening in Germany, I always thought Merkel was like this great leader. What she’s done in Germany is insane. It is insane. They’re having all sorts of attacks.”
It will be hard to keep this out of the news but the media will no doubt find a way.
There is no doubt that Malcolm’s hold on the Lodge is dependent on how he handles “multiculturalism”, that is, on how he lays down the law on unacceptable behaviours in a society made up of many different peoples from many different backgrounds. And we have the European example right before us of how it is not to be done. Nick Cater discusses just this issue today in an article with the appropriate title, Nightmare behind the diversity dream revealed.
The utopian dreamers who see virtue in diversity seem oblivious to the damage they have done. If only we were nicer to our guests, they insist, then everything would be fine.
The severity of the social fracturing is seldom reflected in the mainstream media. Well-intended journalists and editors are uncomfortable about giving oxygen to the ugly side of multiculturalism. Strict social sanctions have been imposed on anybody breaking the code of niceness.
Now, thanks in part to the internet, the thought police are losing control. On social media, ordinary citizens share information — some of it correct, some little more than rumour — in a space where they no longer feel ashamed to speak their minds.
The mainstream media are in cahoots with the barbarians not at the gates but inside the gates. Cater lists examples of crime explosions caused by the arrival of migrants who have absolutely none of the background cultural understanding of what it takes to live in a modern society. Yet he also notes this about Angela Merkel
Scarily, Germany’s Angela Merkel has responded by preparing to send the thought police into Facebook. “Are you working on this?” she was overheard asking Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg last month. “Yeah,” replied Zuckerberg.
The idea that private thoughts could be expunged on the orders of a German chancellor is too horrible to contemplate. Yet Merkel nurses the delusion that a quick word with Zuckerberg will silence discontent.
Merkel has become a deeply polarising figure, splitting Europeans into opposite camps. There are those who think she deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and those who think she has completely lost the plot.
Progressive internationalism is the socialism of our era, an insane belief that we can all get along through good will alone. A bit of reality would therefore go a long way.
A 2010 study by the Institute for the German Economy found the unemployment rate for those without a German passport is 14 per cent. Among those from Islamic countries it was even higher: 55 per cent for Lebanese migrants, 46 per cent for Iraqis and 28 per cent for Afghans.
Elsewhere in Europe, the picture is much the same; asylum-seekers are far likelier to live off welfare than locals or migrants who arrive by other means.
The same picture — mercifully on a smaller scale — is emerging in Australia.
A study of 8500 entrants under the humanitarian resettlement program conducted by the Gillard government in 2011 found that more than six out of 10 refugees had failed to get a job after five years. Eighty-three per cent received Centrelink payments. As in Europe, those from Islamic countries fared worse. Fewer than one in 10 Iraqi and Afghan refugees had found work; 94 in every 100 were receiving welfare.
“Fared worse” depends on the intent of those who have come here, such as whether their intent was actually to work for a living. And there is nothing merciful about our smaller numbers. That has been through the hard work done to limit those arriving uninvited by boat, not an ounce of which was supported by Labor.
We are not a “multicultural” society. We are an Australian community made up of people from many different backgrounds. We are the freest most open society in the world, and it should be the most pressing imperative of our political class to ensure that we stay just exactly like that. Meanwhile our “well-intentioned journalists and editors” should get out of their bubbles and start to think of how we might ourselves avoid the fate of Europe. For us, it’s still not too late.
Either that, or the news has stopped flowing to the rest of us. In somehow related news:
Turkey says two male suicide bombers behind Ankara blasts…
Govt Imposes News Blackout…
And then there is this:
The best bit in this last story is in the final para, that “observers will be watching to see what China’s conception of a ‘code of conduct’ entails.” Yes, we will all be watching closely. Who could possibly guess what they would want? Which then leads to this:
WIKILEAKS release of Obamatrade text stokes ‘freedom of expression’ fears…
From which we find:
One chapter appears to give the signatory countries (referred to as “parties”) greater power to stop embarrassing information going public. The treaty would give signatories the ability to curtail legal proceedings if the theft of information is “detrimental to a party’s economic interests, international relations, or national defense or national security” – in other words, presumably, if a trial would cause the information to spread.
I don’t suppose that means that if there can be no trial, the thieves who stole this information would then immediately go free. Depending on judges to maintain free speech is such an old fashioned idea. How’s this for a story: Judges plan to outlaw climate change ‘denial’.
Including senior judges and lawyers from across the world, the three-day conference on “Climate Change and the Law” was staged in London’s Supreme Court. It was funded, inter alia, by the Supreme Court itself, the UK government and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
As one of the two UN sponsors of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UNEP has been one of the main drivers of alarm over global warming for 40 years. The organiser and chairman of the conference was the Supreme Court judge Lord Carnwath, a fervent believer in man-made climate change, who has worked with the Prince of Wales for more than 20 years, and with UNEP since 2002.
The purpose of this strange get-together was outlined in a keynote speech (visible on YouTube) by Philippe Sands, a QC from Cherie Blair’s Matrix Chambers and professor of law at University College, London. Since it is now unlikely that the world will agree in Paris to a legally binding treaty to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, his theme was that it is now time for the courts to step in, to enforce this as worldwide law.
“The most important thing the courts could do,” [Justice Sands] said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.
Better not to know any and all of this, specially with the world in such competent hands. Our elites are doing everything they can to cut off all sources of information that are not officially sanctioned. The rest of us can go on if we like here on the net since virtually no one reads any of this anyway. And you can see this for yourself by just asking all of your friends about global temperature growth for the past eighteen years. You know what it’s been and I know, but even so it is the best kept secret in the world.
They do not produce wealth where they come from so they are now going to places where they know how wealth is created but will be unable to create this wealth with so many unproductive migrants within their borders. We will have income equality soon enough, but not wealth.
Law of Markets 