Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Using Children as a Front for Deceptive “Causes” is No Longer Viable

Using Children as a Front for Deceptive “Causes” is No Longer Viable

By now, most of you have seen or read something about the new astroturfed campaign to ban guns known as “March for Our Lives”. Leaving aside a host of inconvenient facts such as school shootings are less common today than during the 1990s, most “gun deaths” in USA are suicides, many countries with strict gun control have a higher incidence of suicide than USA and so on, we are still left with the reality that there is co-ordinated campaign by democrats to use non-black children as a front to ban private ownership of guns in USA.

So what do I think about the chance for this campaign to succeed in achieving its objective? The very short version of my answer is that this campaign will fail in a spectacular fashion- especially if the corporate media attempts to keep on pushing it over the next few months. In fact, it might very likely end up costing democrats their potential victory and control of the house in the mid-term elections of 2018. The much longer version of my answer and explanations for my predictions can be found in the rest of this post.

So, let me start by pointing out something that is obvious but appears to have forgotten by most people. Using children as a front for advancing deceptive “causes” has ceased to be a successful electoral strategy in USA since the late-1990s. However, establishment democrats dependent on their highly paid and out-of-touch political “consultants” seem to believe that we are still in the 1990s. Even worse, they have not learned anything from recent history. You might recall that HRC campaign in 2016 ran an unbelievably large number of TV and internet ads which were some version of “Trump is a bad, bad man” and “Oh.. won’t somebody think about the children”.

We all know how that one ended.. and while many “pundits” and “experts” were shocked by the election results- it was clear to observers on the ground that the 2016 election was always far closer than “official polls” predicted. One might think that such a humiliating loss might have caused establishment democrats to go through a process of introspection and analysis. However it is hard to see problems when your paycheck or sinecure depends on pretending that there are no problems. Consequently, establishments democrats just doubled down on the “Trump is a bad, bad man” theme with the addition of “Russia hacked the election for Trump”.

As I have said in previous posts (link 1, link 2 and link 3), blaming Russia and “Putin” for why a candidate such as HRC lost to a reality show clown like Trump is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy and rapidly approaching irrelevance on the part of accusers. This is not to say that Trump is a competent president. As some of you might recall- after predicting his victory in the 2016 election, I wrote a short series about how he was almost certain to fuck up badly regardless of whether he tried to keep his election promises or not.

Now, let us turn to how all of this and more is linked to the futility of using children as fronts for pushing deceptive “causes” after the late 1990s. Which brings us the question.. why was using children as a front for pushing deceptive “causes” a workable strategy until the late-1990s? Also, why did it start losing effectiveness after that and become virtually useless by 2016?

To understand what I trying to explain you next, ask yourself the following question- would you kill and eat a dog or cat unless you were in some extreme circumstances? If not, why not? And how is killing and eating a dog or cat different from doing the same for pigs or goats- two animals that are as intelligent as dogs and cats. The simple answer to that question is that dogs and cats are widely kept as pets unlike pigs and goats. In other words, extensive familiarity with dogs and cats is what allows most people to humanize and care about them. Now apply the same logic to understand why most people USED to care about the future welfare of children as a group.

Long story short- it comes down to the fact that in previous eras, most people had their own children with whom they had better-than-decent relationships. Empathy and caring for children is not instinctual for most people, especially men. The flip side is that people without their own children or those who have little contact with them simply don’t have an deep-seated desire to care for them or their future prospects. While they may be perfectly competent baby-sitters or otherwise normal in their interactions with the children of other people, they do not have any real attachment to them.

Perhaps more importantly, they are unwilling to sacrifice something which matters to them with the vague expectation that it might “help the children”. With that in mind, think about how many 30- and 40-something men today have a biological offspring with whom they enjoy a good and strong relationship. More importantly, how many men in those and younger age groups have a reasonable expectation of having children with whom they will enjoy a good relationship. And now think about how much this has changed since the 1990s.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, for women. How many highly educated women have maybe just one child in their late-30s to show others that they are “normal”? How many either postpone it indefinitely or just choose to have none? To be clear, I am not pushing traditionalism or any similar bullshit ideology. My point is that the percentage of people with kids of their own is directly proportional to how many would give a flying fuck about some “cause” which might “help the children”. And that, you see, is why deceptive advertising campaigns based on “won’t somebody think of the children” have failed so miserably after the late-1990s.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. P Ray
    March 26, 2018 at 11:55 pm

    In the same vein, to the people who say kidnapping is wrong, and brainwashing is wrong …
    seems very few resist their kids being taken away for (at least) hours every day to learn to agree with strangers, where assessments by those strangers decides their employability.
    Plus it’s not as if those strangers that teach kids are the best of the best …

  2. MikeCA
    March 27, 2018 at 7:30 am

    The thing you need recognize is this is a long term campaign issue.

    Abortion has been a long term Republican campaign issue. Although clear majorities want to keep abortion legal, Republicans continue to push to make it illegal. It is possible they may succeed in the next couple of years through changes in the Supreme Court. If they do succeed, that could trigger a backlash. They would then try to limit access to birth control pills too which would also create a backlash.

    Gay rights and gay marriage were long term left wing issues. I never thought gay marriage would be approved, but public opinion shifted rapidly on that issue. The backlash against that change is part of the reason Trump got elected.

    Nothing is going to happen about guns in the short term. If anything is going to happen it is going to be 10 or 20 years from now.

  3. emery
    March 27, 2018 at 8:12 am

    I started reading the article and to your question, “Why don’t you care about the children” my answer is, “They’re not my children”. I’m not white myself but it is obvious to me that the breakup of homogeneous-white america killed caring for children. It used to be that any child could be like your own, if only in the looking like them. Now if ‘think of the children’ ads show little Jamal or Paco the amount of people who care is going to be increasingly smaller. Hell, they’re getting ashamed of showing men/boys in any sympathetic light, so they’ll show only girls. Thus you don’t even get the ‘the boy reminds me of me when I was young,’.

  4. simplyconnected
    March 27, 2018 at 6:23 pm

    What’s wrong with traditionalism?
    It’s worked for eons, stood the test of time. Can you say the new stuff is working with current TFRs? Above replacement TFR seems a very obvious minimum requirement to viability.

  5. March 28, 2018 at 5:55 am

    …and, despite all the noise from their marching feet and naive protesting, as any successful politician chuckles, since when do under-18 U.S. school kids vote?

    • MikeCA
      March 28, 2018 at 1:25 pm

      They don’t, but they will not be under 18 forever. Voter turn out among 18-25 year olds has always been low. I think the point of this march was to get young people excited about registering and voting when they turn 18. Time will tell if this works.

      How did this bullshit concept work out in 2016? Remember all that establishment democratic noise about them having a “permanent demographic majority” since 2008?

  6. March 28, 2018 at 1:45 pm

    Of course they won’t be under-18 forever, but, generally, by the time they all do reach voting age, the majority of them 1) will join the ranks of those 18-25s who don’t turn out to vote… and/or 2) will have forgotten the artificially-induced, juvenile cheerleader zeal they’re feeling momentarily for this issue.

    Exactly! They will very likely not care about voting for establishment democrats who they are no better than republicans on issues that actually matter.

    • MikeCA
      March 29, 2018 at 7:11 am

      “Exactly! They will very likely not care about voting for establishment democrats who they are no better than republicans on issues that actually matter.”

      I have heard that over and over. In 2000 I heard how there was no difference between Bush and Gore. If Gore had won in 2000, he would have listened to the CIA warnings about an Al Qaeda terrorist attack and there is some chance the 9/11 would have been prevented. If the 9/11 attacks had not been prevented, I can guarantee Gore would not have been so stupid as to invade Iraq. Elections have consequences.

      It is true that Democrats are not perfect, but to say they are no better than Republicans is rubbish.

      Are you sure that Gore would not have invaded Iraq after 9/11, especially given mindset of those in the military-industrial complex (deep state) in early-2000s. It is no secret that many in the deep state were looking for any excuse to invade Iraq for control of oil resources after 1999.

      • MikeCA
        March 30, 2018 at 12:13 pm

        “Are you sure that Gore would not have invaded Iraq after 9/11, especially given mindset of those in the military-industrial complex (deep state) in early-2000s.”

        The idea of the Iraq invasion came from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) think tank. They made a plan to invade Iraq, install a pro-US regime and build multiple permanent US military bases from which the US could “project power though out the Middle East.” The intention was to stabilize the region.

        The PNAC was generally viewed as too extremist to be taken seriously, even by most Republicans. Then George W. Bush, who knew almost nothing about foreign policy, brought many of them into his administration. They took the events of 9/11 as an opportunity to implement the plans hatched at PNAC.

        The main reason all US forces had to leave Iraq was because the Iraqi people had read the PNAC plan, it was on the internet at the time. They could see that the US was building what looked like permanent bases in Iraq, and they wanted nothing to do with that plan.

        Gore would have never had anything to do with extremists like those from PNAC. I’m sure that Bill Kristol would have been on TV screaming for an Iraq invasion, but he would have been treated like the extremist nutcase that he is by a President Gore.

      • March 30, 2018 at 8:23 pm

        After the 9/11 attacks, the US public (in its typical emotion-over-reason reactivism) was, among other things, vengefully looking for someone to hit back. Bush easily gained support for his militaristic policy, because an invasion was what the retaliatory majority of the US public eagerly wanted.

        If Gore had been president, even if he might not have wanted to retaliate nor militarily intervene, he would nevertheless have faced serious pressure from the US public to do so anyway.

        As you stated, elections have consequences: if a politician expects to be re-elected, he needs to please the voters. Aren’t you assuming Gore would have heroically, self-sacrificially resisted that public pressure?

      • MikeCA
        March 31, 2018 at 6:49 pm

        “As you stated, elections have consequences: if a politician expects to be re-elected, he needs to please the voters. Aren’t you assuming Gore would have heroically, self-sacrificially resisted that public pressure?”

        There was no spontaneous call from regular people to invade Iraq. It took the Bush administration more than year to convince gullible people to support the Iraq invasion. The Bush administration tried and tried to claim that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but they could never find or fabricate any evidence that passed the smell test.

        As I said, if Gore had been president he would have invaded Afghanistan. The neoconns like Bill Kristol would have been on TV screaming for an invasion of Iraq or somebody. Gore could have simply ignored that, because there was no evidence Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Gore would also have understood that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was actually Al Qaeda’s goal.

        Bush actually went and overthrew one of the governments that Al Qaeda was trying to overthrow. He then had no idea how to rebuild a stable government (may not have been possible, since Iraq is a completely artificial country.) We have all seen the aftermath of that mistake. Gore would have never been so stupid.

        You seem , like many democrat suckers, to think that Bush43 invaded Iraq because he was stupid. While he was was not the brightest bulb in the room, make no mistake- the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was about securing its oil resources for american corporations and putting more military bases in that region. Gore would have done the same thing, because the same corporate interests fund both parties.

      • MikeCA
        March 31, 2018 at 9:56 pm

        “You seem , like many democrat suckers, to think that Bush43 invaded Iraq because he was stupid. While he was was not the brightest bulb in the room, make no mistake- the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was about securing its oil resources for american corporations and putting more military bases in that region. Gore would have done the same thing, because the same corporate interests fund both parties.”

        I do not doubt that “securing its oil resources for American corporations and putting more military bases in that region” was the reason Bush invaded Iraq, but you are totally deluded if you believe that Al Gore would have done the same thing.

      • April 1, 2018 at 12:08 pm

        “There was no spontaneous call from regular people to invade Iraq. It took the Bush administration more than year to convince gullible people to support the IRAQ invasion…

        “As I said, if Gore had been president he would have invaded AFGHANISTAN. The neoconns like Bill Kristol would have been on TV screaming for an invasion of Iraq or somebody. Gore could have simply ignored that…” [capitalizations mine, for clarity]

        There WAS immediate spontaneous US public reaction to retaliate against AFGHANISTAN, and Gore would have felt that pressure. It’d been political suicide to ignore it.

        Further, although Gore may have taken a different approach toward IRAQ if president; and although Gore may have opportunistically criticized Bush’s approach, as a political tactic, Gore’s speeches evidence that he might have essentially acted militaristically if he’d been president:

        https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/liberal-myths-would-al-gore-have-invaded-iraq/

        And, I’m not the only one (by the way — I support neither Democrats nor Republicans; in this last US presidential election, I wrote-in on my early-voting ballot, “no candidate represents me”) who questions that Gore would have followed “peace” after 9/11:

        https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-al-gore-would-have-invaded-iraq-and-what-it-tells-us-about-syria/article14105322/

  7. MikeCA
    March 31, 2018 at 7:11 pm

    This post seems to me to be part of the conservative/NRA counter attack against the gun control movement revitalized by the Parkland kids. What are the kids advocating? Universal background checks for guns, raise the age to purchases rifles from 18 to 21 and ban military-style weapons. These measures would make some small difference. They would not solve the problem of school shootings. They are generally popular. The NRA proposal to arm teachers is so stupid it is hard to take seriously.

    Enjoy the defeat of democrats in 2018 and 2020, then. There is a reason establishment democrats cannot consistently win in states other than California and Massachusetts. But you are too stupid to see the obvious.

    Conservatives/NRA types are upset that these kids are saying this in simple, plain English. What they find so frustrating about the Parkland kids is they cannot demonize them. Demonizing is a standard tactic of political debate (used by both left and right) and is part of the standard conservative playbook. They are trying to force the Parkland kids off the national stage because they are so hard to attack personally, as Laura Ingraham just found out.

    Perhaps you might want to step outside outside your echo chamber. You have no idea how much all these manufactured protests against guns have mobilized the gun owner base- even the ones who would have otherwise bothered to care.

    • MikeCA
      March 31, 2018 at 10:13 pm

      “Enjoy the defeat of democrats in 2018 and 2020, then. There is a reason establishment democrats cannot consistently win in states other than California and Massachusetts. But you are too stupid to see the obvious.”

      “Perhaps you might want to step outside outside your echo chamber. You have no idea how much all these manufactured protests against guns have mobilized the gun owner base- even the ones who would have otherwise bothered to care.”

      Well that certainly triggered you.

      Let all the poison that lurks in the mud, hatch out.

      Shills for establishment democrats like yourself might want to start asking yourself some simple questions such as:

      1] How did your anointed establishment candidate (HRC) lose to a reality show clown like Trump even though she spent more than twice what he did on advertisements and had support of the deep state?

      2] Why are so few state legislatures and governorships controlled by democrats? Perhaps, even more worryingly for democrats, why are so many mid-western states that were once reliably “blue” no longer so?

      3] Why has the voter turnout among supposedly solid democrat-voting sections of electorate been so low- even in solidly “blue” states where democrats won in 2016? Why was voter enthusiasm for HRC so low even in reliably democrat states?

      4] Why are Obama’s total vote numbers in 2008 still the highest any presidential candidate has received till date? Also, what is the role of his administration’s policies in widespread disappointment with democrats among key voter constituencies.

      • MikeCA
        April 1, 2018 at 9:33 am

        “How did your anointed establishment candidate (HRC) lose to a reality show clown like Trump even though she spent more than twice what he did on advertisements and had support of the deep state?”

        Hillary Clinton was a poor candidate. She had sky high negatives, but the only other serious candidate was not even a Democrat and still he came close to beating her in the primary.

        The more relevant question is how did a “reality show clown like Trump” blow away a whole field of “conservative” Republicans. What does that tell you about the Republican party?

    • thordaddy
      April 2, 2018 at 5:33 pm

      Phenotypically, boss Hogg looks demonic, although, trim and fit compared to his original virtual version.

      As such, it is not even a requirement of conservatives to “demonize” where self-affliction applies.

      Yet, this all aims to miss the fundamental point.

      “Gun control” advocates are not arguing in good faith and are using the children to disarm the parents of a serious family in-vestment known as “guns and ammo.”

  8. Johnny
    April 1, 2018 at 1:39 am

    You seem to be good at finding the worst in people

    • A.B. Prosper
      April 3, 2018 at 12:16 pm

      What part of Devils Advocate don’t you understand?

      Also re: the main point.

      I appreciate A.D.’s cold blooded cynicism and truthfulness on the matter

      The reality is using “our children” only works when everyone has children and almost all the children are like them.

      Otherwise its just what we have here, tribal cold war

  9. thordaddy
    April 2, 2018 at 5:20 pm

    Using children for deceptive cause was NEVER viable. Mass parricide makes it so. A culling is in the cards.

  10. thordaddy
    April 2, 2018 at 5:21 pm

    “A demon uses the son to disarm his father.”

    — Angelic Voice #13

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: