Novato Republican Women, Federated

NRWF Presents


Non-political event supporting local student scholarships

June 13, 2023

11:00 - 2:00

Information & Reservations

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • All
  • Blog
  • Club Activities
  • Latest News
  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • Spahr Center

    Spahr Center/Marin HHS the joint Drag Queen Stories and Vaccine Clinics. Read Marin's Teach Pride, Reach Wide Educator Toolkit.
    Read More
    • Latest News
  • Housing Element Lawsuit

    Lawsuit challenges Marin County's housing element asserting violations of state law.
    Read More
    • Latest News
  • California Defaults

    California defaults on $18.6 billion debt, now businesses have to pay. When a state defaults on its federal unemployment insurance loan,
    Read More
    • Latest News
  • A Civil . . . . What?

    A Civil . . . . What? By Anne Doherty Generations, The History of America’s Future (1991) and The Fourth Turning (1997) are books by William Strauss
    Read More
    • Blog
load more / hold SHIFT key to load all load all

Battle of Idealists

By Anne Doherty ~~

Generations, the landmark work by William Strauss and Neil Howe, theorizes a generation cycle in American and global history. The 1992 book accurately predicted 9/11 and other major events, plus coined now commonplace terms: “millennials,” “the social war,” and others. The authors predicted that by 2020, if social pressures in the U.S. didn’t lead to civil war, some outside force or conflict would bring the country together. Remember WW II.

The assumption is that around 2020 the so-called idealist generation (the Baby Boomers) would peak in power and want to see their ideals made reality. This prediction manifested itself in the 2020 election when leftist idealists pulled every trick necessary to take the election from Donald Trump, who represented their worst nightmare—power in the hands of Conservatives—people of faith and others who believe in the American Dream.

The trouble with idealists is that they can’t be satisfied. Nothing is perfect or ever will be, so long as human beings are in charge, yet idealists demand perfection. So, it’s worth looking at what the idealists want in order to guess what it would take to end the battle.

What conservatives want is simple: the right to work, raise a family, and pray as they see fit. Underpinning these ideals is respect for life, as espoused by the Right to Life movement and found in the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution. Respect for life does not guarantee a comfortable life. Respect acknowledges that life can be a challenge, that meeting the challenge is part of the joy of living, and that each person has his own vision of success. I remember when Donald Trump visited a natural disaster site. He showed empathy to a man who had lost a home, then urged, with a twinkle, “Of course, you’re going to rebuild!” That comment epitomizes the Right’s approach to living: embrace the challenge.

Liberals, on the other hand, want no suffering. At least, that’s what they promise. No one should be offended. No one should endure pain. No one should go without healthcare. No matter what you do or whom you do it to—even if you murder someone— you should only experience comfort and ease. This idealism causes them to hate religion because they see it as a set of rules hypocrites use to cause suffering.

Idealists hate hypocrites because it’s a glimpse in the mirror. Since nothing can be perfect, all idealists engage in hypocrisy. The Right think the Left are hypocrites for promising utopia. The liberals thinks the conservatives are hypocrites for believing in a God that lets people suffer.

Conservatives acknowledge that not everyone can lift himself up by his bootstraps. That’s what neighbors, charities and churches are for—or were before Government crept into all aspects of life.

In their quest to steer the masses toward their utopian goal, liberals utilize the latest buzzwords “equity” and “justice” (racial, gender, financial, etc.). They then veer off to focus on climate change. To Bill Gates, George Soros, Klaus Schwab, and members of his World Economic Forum, “Climate Crisis” is the world’s most pressing issue and is so vast and essential that the ends justify any means.

In a recent speech to the Danish parliament, Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky ended by saying “Europe must give up Russian oil, give up as soon as possible because it is the crazy income from energy resources that allows the Russian leadership to . . . promote hatred against other nations, against us, and destroy the lives of neighboring countries.” He tacked on the climate meme to his 2020 Davos speech as well. In short, green energy equals peace on earth.

The Strauss-Howe theory that 2020 would be a time for a unifying crisis is widely known in marketing and political circles. Therefore, the objective of the powerful would be to create a crisis or manipulate one for their idealistic aims. Thus, the amplification of competing, terrifying phenomena that prime the public to be “saved” by a unifying force: Global warming/global cooling, a “stolen”/“fair” election, Antifa “rallies”/January 6 “insurrectionism”, a Covid “pandemic”/viral outbreak, even an attack on human sexual nature.

How will it end? Despite censorship, it seems as if our technological ability to communicate quickly and broadly has allowed reality to intrude somewhat. People are speaking up. Mandates are falling. Parents have begun to defend their children. Even the threat of World War III seems less likely. NATO leaders may sense their citizens won’t die for ideals no one is sure are real. After all, perfection does not belong to any one of us, but to that which is greater than all of us. The liberals can seek utopia all they like; the only constant human reality is change.