The Boomer Question

Eusebius

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Interesting fact about boomer presidents: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Donald Trump were all born in the same two-month period in summer 1946, and thus were all conceived during the same few weeks after Japan had been defeated in 1945. That, ahem, spasm of "America, fuck yeah!" which took hold in 1945 has continued to ripple down to the septuagenarian president of today and his tradcon supporters who think that it's just the nature of things for America to be #1, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary.
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
Where the fuck is Paracelsus when you really need him?

That great Australian shitlord alchemist.

Probably still marking his own homework.


We will wait.


When the student is ready, the master will appear.
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
For those who are interested in the cycles of archetypal generations, here is a great article based on a book titled "The Fourth Turning." History indeed repeats itself.

Heroes, Artists, Prophets, & Nomads

In their unbelievably prescient and prophetic 1997 book, The Fourth Turning, Howe and Strauss identified four generational archetypes: Hero, Artist, Prophet, and Nomad. Each consists of people born in a roughly twenty-year period. As each archetypal generation reaches the end of its 80-year lifespan, it is replaced by a new generation of the same archetype.

Each archetypal generation proceeds through the normal phases of life: childhood, young adulthood, mature adulthood, and old age. Each tends to dominate society during middle age (40–60 years old), then begins dying off as the next generation takes the helm.

The change of control from one generation to the next is called a “turning” in the Strauss/Howe scheme. The turnings have their own characteristics, which I’ll describe shortly. First, let’s look at the archetypes and how they match the generations alive today.

The characteristics of each archetype aren’t neatly divided by the calendar; they are better seen as evolving along a continuum. (This is a very important point. It is why we get trends and changes, not abrupt turnarounds. Thankfully.) People born toward the beginning or end of a generation share some aspects of the previous or following one. Obviously, individual differences can also outweigh generational identity for any particular person. (We all know people who were seemingly born in the wrong era.) The archetypes simply describe broad tendencies that, at the larger societal level, add up to significant differences.

Hero generations are usually raised by protective parents. Heroes come of age during a time of great crisis. Howe calls them heroes because they resolve that crisis, an accomplishment that then defines the rest of their lives. Following the crisis, the Heroes become institutionally powerful in midlife and remain focused on meeting great challenges. In old age they tend to have a spiritual awakening as they watch younger generations work through cultural upheaval.

The G.I. Generation that fought World War II is the most recent example of the Hero archetype. They built the US into an economic powerhouse in the postwar years and then confronted youthful rebellion in the 1960s. Further back, the generation of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, heroes of the American Revolution, experienced the religious “Great Awakening” in their twilight years.

Artists are the children of heroes, born before and during the crisis but not old enough to be an active part of the solution. Highly protected during childhood, Artists are risk-averse young adults in the post-crisis years. They see conformity as the best path to success. They develop and refine the innovations forged in the crisis. Artists experience the same cultural awakening as Heroes, but from the perspective of mid-adulthood.

Today’s older retirees are mostly artists, part of the “Silent Generation” that may remember World War II but was too young to participate. They married early and moved into gleaming new 1950s suburbs. The Silent Generation went through its own midlife crisis in the 1970s and 1980s before entering a historically affluent, active, gated-community retirement.

Prophet generations experience childhood in a period of post-crisis affluence. Having not seen a real crisis, they often create cultural upheaval during their young adult years. In mid-life they become moralistic, values-obsessed leaders and parents. As they enter old age, prophets lay the groundwork for the next crisis.

The postwar Baby Boomers are the latest Prophet generation. They grew up in generally comfortable times with the US at the height of its global power. They expanded their consciousness when they came of age in the “Awakening” period of the 1960s, defined the 1970s/1980s “yuppie” lifestyle, and are now entering old age, having shaped the culture by virtue of sheer numbers.

Nomads are the fourth and final archetype. They are children during the “Awakening” periods of cultural chaos. Unlike the overly indulged and protected Prophets, Nomads go through childhood with minimal supervision and guidance. They learn early in life not to trust society’s basic institutions. They come of age as individualistic pragmatists.

The most recent Nomads are Generation X, born in the 1960s and 1970s. Their earliest memories are of faraway war, urban protests, no-fault divorce, and broken homes. Now entering mid-life, Generation X is trying to give its own children a better experience. They find success elusive because they distrust large institutions and have no strong connections to public life. They prefer to stay out of the spotlight and trust only themselves. Their story is still unfolding today.

After the Nomad archetype, the cycle repeats with another Hero generation, the Millennials (born from 1982 through about 2004), who are beginning to take root in American culture. They are a large generation numerically, filling schools and colleges and propelling new technology into the mainstream. If the pattern holds, they will face a great crisis. It will influence the rest of their lives just as World War II shaped the G.I. Generation Heroes.

https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/generational-chaos-ahead
 
Brand new article about Boomers. I wasn't able to embed the charts, they can be seen in the link below:

The Boomers Ruined Everything

The Baby Boomers ruined America. That sounds like a hyperbolic claim, but it’s one way to state what I found as I tried to solve a riddle. American society is going through a strange set of shifts: Even as cultural values are in rapid flux, political institutions seem frozen in time. The average U.S. state constitution is more than 100 years old. We are in the third-longest period without a constitutional amendment in American history: The longest such period ended in the Civil War. So what’s to blame for this institutional aging?

One possibility is simply that Americans got older. The average American was 32 years old in 2000, and 37 in 2018. The retiree share of the population is booming, while birth rates are plummeting. When a society gets older, its politics change. Older voters have different interests than younger voters: Cuts to retiree-focused benefits are scarier, while long-term problems such as excessive student debt, climate change, and low birth rates are more easily ignored.

But it’s not just aging. In a variety of different areas, the Baby Boom generation created, advanced, or preserved policies that made American institutions less dynamic. In a recent report for the American Enterprise Institute, I looked at issues including housing, work rules, higher education, law enforcement, and public budgeting, and found a consistent pattern: The political ascendancy of the Boomers brought with it tightening control and stricter regulation, making it harder to succeed in America. This lack of dynamism largely hasn’t hurt Boomers, but the mistakes of the past are fast becoming a crisis for younger Americans.

Zoning codes in America have their roots in the early 1900s. Some land-use rules arose out of efforts to manage growing density in cities due to industrialization and new construction technologies that allowed taller buildings. But most zoning was intended to protect property values for homeowners, or to exclude certain racial groups. For many decades, though, zoning codes were relatively limited in scope.

Stricter zoning rules began to be implemented in many places in the 1940s and 1950s as suburbanization began. But then things got worse in the 1960s to 1980s. This shift is reflected in the increasing frequency with which various land-use associated words were used in Google’s database of American English-language publications. These decades, when the political power of the Baby Boomer generation was rapidly rising, saw a sharp escalation in land-use rules.

There’s debate about why this is: Some researchers say the end of formal segregation may have pushed some voters to look for informal methods of enforcing segregation. Others suggest that a change in financial returns to different classes of investment caused homeowners to become more protective of their asset values.

Today, strict land-use rules—whether framed as rules about parking, green space, height limits, neighborhood aesthetics, or historic preservation—make new construction difficult. Even as the American population has doubled since the 1940s, it has gotten more and more legally challenging to build houses. The result is that younger Americans are locked out of suitable housing. And as I’ve argued previously, when young people have to rent or live in more crowded housing, they tend to postpone the major personal events marking transformation into settled adulthood, such as marriage and childbearing.

But, of course, Boomers didn’t only make rules that nudge young people out of homeownership. They also made new rules restricting young people’s employment. Laws and rules requiring workers to have special licenses, degrees, or certificates to work have proliferated over the past few decades. And while much of this rise came before Boomers were politically active, instead of reversing the trend, they extended it.


Just as tight land-use rules make existing homeowners richer by reducing how many new houses are listed on the market, strict licensing rules make existing workers richer by reducing competition in their fields. And while some industries clearly need licensing rules for health and safety reasons, most of the growth in licensure has been in fields where health and safety justifications are less salient: Do you really need hours of course work and special exams to be a florist, an interior designer, or an auctioneer?

By privileging existing workers, licensure rules increase income inequality, and they do so specifically by shifting income toward older workers. When licensure standards exclude felons, they also disproportionately affect minorities. Young people, and especially minorities, are increasingly being legally prohibited from work.

Again, scholars differ on explanations for why licensure has proliferated. It could be that work has simply gotten more complex. Or it could be that the decline of unions led to a search for new ways to maintain occupational closure. Increased gender and racial integration in workplaces may also have led to a search for new forms of hierarchy.

But even for workers who don’t need a formal license, barriers to work have grown over time. Jobs that once required a high-school degree now require a college degree. This escalation of credential requirements has created a kind of educational arms race. The rise in collegiate attainment, again, did not begin with Boomers. Rather, the GI Bill, and the explosion in new university chartering that it underwrote, created a new norm of college education for many jobs. With the rising availability of higher education, employers, who tend to be older than their employees, often demand degrees as licenses.

Meanwhile, even as higher education gets more expensive, the actual economic returns to a university degree are about flat. People who are more educated make more money than people with less education, but overall, most educational groups are just treading water. The social norm requiring degrees for virtually any middle-class job is one largely invented by Boomers and their parents, and enforced by those generations.

As with formal licensing and land-use rules, there are explanations for the rise of degree requirements: greater public support for education, a complex economy, growing demand for knowledge-workers. All probably have some validity. But the actual enforcement mechanism for this norm is explicitly generational: older employers setting standards for younger job applicants.

And whatever specific factors contributed to the rise of licensure, land-use rules, and demands for more degrees, these developments are part of a wider social trend toward increasing control and regulation across all walks of life. Regardless of changes in formal segregation, unionization, demand for knowledge workers, returns to various asset classes, or other explanations for the rise of work and housing regulation, what is striking is that these trends occurred simultaneously. A graph tracking the rise in paperwork needed to start a new business, or the length of census questionnaires, or the length of the federal code, or virtually any measure of administrative or regulatory complexity would show the same basic trend. Sector-specific explanations seem a bit suspect when the trend itself is so general.

The most glaring example of this growth in regulation and control is also the easiest one to pin on Baby Boomers: the incredible rise in incarceration rates. Even though murder rates are today at the same levels they were in the 1950s, the imprisoned share of the population is higher in America than in any country other than North Korea. We imprison a larger share of the population than authoritarian countries such as Turkmenistan and China.

That huge spike has a very clear origin in the crime wave of the 1960s and 1970s. Academic research has shown that incarcerating more criminals does reduce crime somewhat, so, as with all the other examples I’ve given, this response was understandable.

But many countries experienced a similar crime wave. Most of them experienced similar crime declines in the 1990s, even without so much imprisonment. Furthermore, research has also shown that imprisonment patterns in America were heavily biased by race, with incarceration rates not always reflecting actual rates of criminality.

Today, while incarceration rates are edging lower, they remain astonishingly high. Even as younger Americans are locked out of jobs and housing by strict rules set by previous generations, a startlingly large share of them, especially in minority communities, are literally behind bars. Those who remain free are nonetheless bereft of family, friends, and potential co-workers—and whole communities are, as a matter of law, stripped of potential workers.

It’s understandable that, faced with a wave of crime, Baby Boomers might want to respond with a law-enforcement crackdown. But the scale of the response was disproportionate. The rush to respond to a social ill with control, with extra rules and procedures, with the commanding power of the state, has been typical of American policy making in the postwar period, and especially since the 1970s. And whatever specific arguments may have justified a command-and-control response to crime, this kind of response reared its head for every major political problem encountered by Baby Boomers: housing, jobs, education, crime, and, of course, debt.

Even young Americans today who are free from prison are nonetheless in bondage to debt—sometimes their own debt, in the form of rapidly growing student loans or personal and credit-card loans. But on a larger scale, the problems of entitlements, pensions, Social Security, Medicare, and federal, state, and local debt are becoming more severe all the time. Already, in places such as Detroit, Illinois, and Puerto Rico, where political rules make flexible solutions hard and the population is aging very quickly, massive debt restructurings loom large. But around the country, the pressures of long-term obligations will grow.

Below, I show a reasonable projection of the share of national income that will have to be spent paying for these obligations in the future if there is no substantial restructuring of liabilities. It’s based on consensus forecasts from groups such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget for economic growth and for programs such as Social Security and Medicare where such forecasts are available—but in some cases, such as state debts and pensions, no such forecast was available, and so I developed a simple one.

Making these payments will require fiscal austerity, through either higher taxes or lower alternative spending. Younger Americans will bear the burdens of the Baby Boomer generation, whether in smaller take-home pay or more potholes and worse schools.

Furthermore, the basic demographic balance sheet is getting worse all the time, increasing the relative burden on young people. Working-age Americans are dying off in alarming numbers.

The odds of a 32-year-old dying have risen by 24 percent in the past five years, even as death rates among older Americans are about stable. Baby Boomers are living longer even as the workers who pay for their pensions are dying from an epidemic of drug overdose, suicide, car accidents, and violence. But, of course, while this sudden increase in working-age death rates is a new concern, the long-run fiscal crunch has been obvious for decades. For virtually the entire period of Boomer political dominance, it has been obvious that long-term obligations needed to be fixed. And yet, the problem has not been fixed. Younger Americans will suffer the consequences.

As dire as this all sounds, there is cause for hope. If the problem is too many senseless rules, then the solution is obvious. Strict licensure standards can be repealed. Minimum lot sizes can be reduced. Building-height ceilings can be raised. Nonviolent prisoners can have their sentences commuted. Even thorny problems such as cost control in universities can be addressed through caps on non-instructional spending, while solutions for government debt and obligations are widely known, even if they are politically unpalatable.

Not all of these problems were first caused by the Boomers, but they each worsened on their watch. If leaders in business, education, and politics want to solve these problems, they can. Whether the gerontocracy in charge today wants solutions may be another question altogether.
 

Elmore

Kingfisher
Inter-generational antipathy is not really going to solve anything. Sounds like exactly the sort of impotent anger-siphoning that a certain group of rootless internationalists promote at every turn.
 

DiRocchio

Chicken
The 'Boomers' are, I think, a symptom of the decline of the West, as opposed to a cause, much like mass immigration is a symptom of the same decline and not a cause; though many, myself included, for years believed it was the other way round.

The key question is, 'What is the root cause of this decline?'.

It goes much deeper and further back than the layman probably realises. The Protestant Reformation contributed greatly to this decline, for it was a major revolution that undermined the solid, static, hierarchical order that had existed for at least 1000 years. When a revolution is ushered in it becomes incredibly hard to control the forces that have been unleashed. Once the ruling authority has been cast down then all authority becomes vulnerable to the rebellious, selfish spirits previously restrained. The revolt against the Catholic Church of the 16th Century opened the damn of rebellious spirit, the animus focused on 'becoming' rather than 'being'; over the centuries these spirits flooded all corners of society and swept away remaining vestiges of authority, whether it be in the school or the home.

Capitalism is the result of European man's shift from 'being' to 'becoming', which itself was a consequence of the Reformation. Due to the puritanical leanings of its ancestors the American possesses a restless spirit, conducive to money-making but not so conducive to happiness or stability, as evidenced by the American Revolution. Wherever we look we are harassed by advertisements and social media that encourage us to believe we should be unhappy and discontented with our present 'being', and that only by focusing on 'becoming' something or someone else can we be happy. "If I buy this house in that neighbourhood maybe I'll become happier, or "If I buy this product it will surely increase my happiness". I suspect many men in this sphere are aware of how large, predatory corporations use this technique to make money out of us, but we must not forget that the average man has not realised this, and so he is almost perpetually caught in the artificial cycle created for him. We shouldn't scorn him, rather, we should pity him and seek to strengthen his resolve against the diabolical forces which act upon his person.

The boomer is a symptom of a profound disruption in the metaphysics of western civilisation. By considering the boomer's deficiencies we furnish ourselves with knowledge that will help us tackle the quandary we face.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
WalterBlack said:
Brand new article about Boomers. I wasn't able to embed the charts, they can be seen in the link below:

The Boomers Ruined Everything

Precautionary Rule One:

The Atlantic and Time are almost identical. They both cater to a certain demographic maintaining its own identity, whether or not what's said in them has anything to do with the truth. The only difference is that Time accomplishes this appeal principally in pictures on its front cover (comedically, in the case of Trump's "Meltdown" and "Total Meltdown" covers; disturbingly, in the case of "You" being named Person Of The Year) while The Atlantic chooses mediocre writers and 10,000 words. Consider the medium accordingly. And the largest problem with both is not what they say, it's how they make you see yourself. It's that they teach you how to want.

Precautionary Rule Two:

The principal marketing demographic is and always has been the 18-44 range.

iu


iu


iu

I had this one at home. RIP Mort Drucker and possibly Don Martin

The difference between these images and The Atlantic's take on the problem is that back in the 60s it was the elders who had the disposable income to buy these magazines and the kids were being marketed as the threat.

If you think the majority of the Baby Boomers are going to be retiring on an income higher than that enjoyed by Wai Ling Chen the Mandarian toilet scrubber working the men's room in Beijing, I have a portfolio of public pension assets I'd like to sell you. The Boomers are entering their seventies. The period in which they could have bought anything contained in an advertisement that runs in The Atlantic has passed. For this crowd it's adult diapers, Warferin, copper bracelets for arthritis, and waiting on that fiftysomething hedge fund owner to swoop in and buy the 40-year-old half-ruin of a house they've been clinging to as their retirement fund. This has rather wider implications in something called hyperinflation, but I'm trying not to go gestalt here so I'll leave that to one side.

(Hey, don't take it from me about The Atlan. It proudly advertises how it worked with advertisers on making "relevant" stories.

PBS tapped The Atlantic to raise awareness for and generate interest in the sophomore season of its historical drama, Mercy Street. By leveraging overlooked and forgotten aspects of the Civil War—the show's setting—the campaign, with a custom article as its centerpiece, resonated with fans of history and entertainment alike and the inquisitive Atlantic audience.
)

Which is a roundabout way of saying you are being manipulated to find someone to hate. More importantly, though, what the System - and I am not talking about the triple brackets, or anybody specific - wants is that you do nothing about all this. They just want your rage, and they want your attention, and then they want you to go away and buy something ... which you will, because the advertisers and journalists are not fools, their rags would not have lasted this long without them instinctively getting the truth of the triune brain. The same imperative that caused you to go reading The Atlantic is the same imperative that will get you taking your weekly pay check and telling yourself you're unplugged.

That's the point of reporting on it in The Atlantic, if you want riots, lynchings, uprisings, Occupations and other assorted uninformed crowds you call Twitter and George Soros.

So bear all of that in mind when you read these articles. They have a certain purpose in revealing the set of mind of a certain demographic and the priorities of a certain class of advertiser, but if you're looking for some sort of Platonic ideal or truth in here, you might as well read the Victoria's Secret catalogues. At least you can sometimes spot the airbrushing. Read the article again and you'll see all the standard liberal markers: down on the GI Bill, down on racism, down on most issues that the average Google employee thinks makes a difference in the world. They give the audience a glimpse of hope without -- and note this carefully -- setting out what the solutions are, because they're unpalatable politically (and journalistically).

The only thread I am inclined to draw out of this article is that, taken at its face, it verifies Nassim Taleb's ideas: the more you regulate, the more fragility you install within the system. The more you make it vulnerable to a large shock. Paradoxically, the more you try and make a system safe, the more vulnerable you make it to outside shocks and unforeseen circumstances, because unintended consequences multiply on one another. This concept has limits, and that's the key: what works at a local level will not work at a national level, hence why, to paraphrase someone, you are a libertarian Federally, a Republican at the state level, a Democrat at the local government level, and a socialist amongst your family and friends.
 

Thomas Jackson

Woodpecker
Yea its pretty silly to lump everyone born in a 20 year period together. A gay Puerto Rican Atheist from NYC and a White Christian farm boy from Iowa are going to share little just because they were born in the same year.

Demographics of the generations are much more telling.
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
THE GROUP RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OUR TROUBLES


Some wag commented on her bitchute video:

The boomer cries out in pain as he trades your future in for cheaper plastic crap, an RV and a Harley.

We can't embed bitchute here and it seems she uploaded it to youtube as well, so...
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
captain_shane said:
This is more divide and conquer by the tribe.

If people simply educated themselves, no one would be able to divide and conquer them.

If you leave the gate open and a wolf eats your sheep, who is to blame -- you or the wolf?
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
Paracelsus said:
WalterBlack said:
Brand new article about Boomers. I wasn't able to embed the charts, they can be seen in the link below:

The Boomers Ruined Everything

Precautionary Rule One:

The Atlantic and Time are almost identical. They both cater to a certain demographic maintaining its own identity, whether or not what's said in them has anything to do with the truth. The only difference is that Time accomplishes this appeal principally in pictures on its front cover (comedically, in the case of Trump's "Meltdown" and "Total Meltdown" covers; disturbingly, in the case of "You" being named Person Of The Year) while The Atlantic chooses mediocre writers and 10,000 words. Consider the medium accordingly. And the largest problem with both is not what they say, it's how they make you see yourself. It's that they teach you how to want.

Precautionary Rule Two:

The principal marketing demographic is and always has been the 18-44 range.

iu


iu


iu

I had this one at home. RIP Mort Drucker and possibly Don Martin

The difference between these images and The Atlantic's take on the problem is that back in the 60s it was the elders who had the disposable income to buy these magazines and the kids were being marketed as the threat.

If you think the majority of the Baby Boomers are going to be retiring on an income higher than that enjoyed by Wai Ling Chen the Mandarian toilet scrubber working the men's room in Beijing, I have a portfolio of public pension assets I'd like to sell you. The Boomers are entering their seventies. The period in which they could have bought anything contained in an advertisement that runs in The Atlantic has passed. For this crowd it's adult diapers, Warferin, copper bracelets for arthritis, and waiting on that fiftysomething hedge fund owner to swoop in and buy the 40-year-old half-ruin of a house they've been clinging to as their retirement fund. This has rather wider implications in something called hyperinflation, but I'm trying not to go gestalt here so I'll leave that to one side.

(Hey, don't take it from me about The Atlan. It proudly advertises how it worked with advertisers on making "relevant" stories.

PBS tapped The Atlantic to raise awareness for and generate interest in the sophomore season of its historical drama, Mercy Street. By leveraging overlooked and forgotten aspects of the Civil War—the show's setting—the campaign, with a custom article as its centerpiece, resonated with fans of history and entertainment alike and the inquisitive Atlantic audience.
)

Which is a roundabout way of saying you are being manipulated to find someone to hate. More importantly, though, what the System - and I am not talking about the triple brackets, or anybody specific - wants is that you do nothing about all this. They just want your rage, and they want your attention, and then they want you to go away and buy something ... which you will, because the advertisers and journalists are not fools, their rags would not have lasted this long without them instinctively getting the truth of the triune brain. The same imperative that caused you to go reading The Atlantic is the same imperative that will get you taking your weekly pay check and telling yourself you're unplugged.

That's the point of reporting on it in The Atlantic, if you want riots, lynchings, uprisings, Occupations and other assorted uninformed crowds you call Twitter and George Soros.

So bear all of that in mind when you read these articles. They have a certain purpose in revealing the set of mind of a certain demographic and the priorities of a certain class of advertiser, but if you're looking for some sort of Platonic ideal or truth in here, you might as well read the Victoria's Secret catalogues. At least you can sometimes spot the airbrushing. Read the article again and you'll see all the standard liberal markers: down on the GI Bill, down on racism, down on most issues that the average Google employee thinks makes a difference in the world. They give the audience a glimpse of hope without -- and note this carefully -- setting out what the solutions are, because they're unpalatable politically (and journalistically).

The only thread I am inclined to draw out of this article is that, taken at its face, it verifies Nassim Taleb's ideas: the more you regulate, the more fragility you install within the system. The more you make it vulnerable to a large shock. Paradoxically, the more you try and make a system safe, the more vulnerable you make it to outside shocks and unforeseen circumstances, because unintended consequences multiply on one another. This concept has limits, and that's the key: what works at a local level will not work at a national level, hence why, to paraphrase someone, you are a libertarian Federally, a Republican at the state level, a Democrat at the local government level, and a socialist amongst your family and friends.


The truth is, divide and conquer is the most successful game ever played.

I doubt there will ever be a time it it not used, and the majority of people don't fall for it. Blacks against whites, male vs. female, rich vs. poor and now young vs. old.

There is definitely a boomer mind-set, and they definitely deserve scorn as a demographic, but it's wise to remember that most of them weren't 'individually' responsible. Most people will take a bite of the apple if they can get away with it.

But you can't get away with it forever, everyone pays the price eventually. Whether it's in diapers and warfarin or just having some 3rd world 'carer' coming in and slapping you about when they should be wiping your arse.

Boomers are an easy target. But remember, they have as much disdain for their 'failed' offspring as well, who never got such great jobs, never got to be able to afford one single house, let alone three, never got to own their own car except under crippling debt...

It's a complex system, economics. Apparently people who study physics as a system do well in it. I can believe it. I'm an idiot myself, but then again I was never taught about 'economics' at school, or by my parents.

But as per that Soph vid I just posted, I've also come to believe that 'bankers' are evil and added them to the list with journos and politicos on. My boomer parents failed me in a massive way, there is no doubt about that, but I still don't like it when (((people))) try to manipulate me and pull my heart-strings. For (((people))) read (((anyone in a position of power))) that has the ability to not take responsibility.

This is what I have come to truly understand:

With great power, comes no responsibility.

See the banking crash and never having to say you are sorry.

I'm a man severely limited by his not so massive intelligence. And also limited by a less than great education. Not to mention my own personal lack of not seeing the importance in all of this a lot sooner so I could have at least made some kind of effort to understand.

These things are made obtuse and opaque by design. But some kind of economic education is a grand necessity. For all.

I don't believe it's really possible to fully understand the whole boomer paradigm without one.

But then again, I do know when someone pisses down my back and tells me it's raining.

I'll look after my boomer parents even though they failed me. I'll even help to look after other boomers too even though they failed me as well in a wider sense.

We sure are inheriting a right shit show that is for sure. And the longer it takes for a reckoning, the greater that reckoning will be.

Life hasn't been great for us Gen-X'ers. Not as good as it could have been anyway. For most of us at least. But I don't envy what the generations to come will have to traverse.

But it's probably not just a boomer phenomenon. Just read any history book. I don't think the old have ever truly cared about the young, further than getting them born, raised, then kicked out the nest to go and mow someone else's lawn.

Child rearing must really take it out of you, and I think most parents are glad to see the back of theirs by the end of it. Why the fuck would they care about anyone else's kids in a wider societal sense?

It's every man for himself in this world. Boomers are part of the problem. But they aren't the problem. Just like the jews are not the problem.

So it's not so cut and dried. The propagandists on either side would like you to believe it is. That makes a final solution a lot easier to sell.

To paraphrase Paracelsus' last paragraph: we don't really care about other human beings extended beyond our immediate families. And it's not like many of us even have a 'tribe' any more, is it?

As a race we have come too far too quickly. Progress has been too fast. It seems to me we really don't want to solve this problem that has plagued humanity since we first came swinging out of the trees and on to the savannah.

How can we alleviate human suffering as much as possible, and share our resources in a meaningful way so a majority of us can be happy?

Until that question is even asked, all this stuff is academic. Until then it's the same old game: every man for himself. That attitude also exists in nuclear families as well if you didn't know.

It's surprising that Gen-X didn't rebel more than it did. But I guess by the time they realised they'd been had, those old drug and alcohol addictions would have really kicked in and they were too powerless to do anything about it. Except hate mum and dad a little bit more. Always taught to internalise their problems rather than finding external solutions for them, I also think a certain amount of 'learned helplessness' is at play as well. But it would explain them taking things out on themselves more than lashing out at the real culprits. But even we are getting on now, and anger can only be maintained for so long before it takes a real toll on the body and mind complex.

But no, a lot of the boomers aren't so well off. They've been playing a game of cat and mouse with the financial grim reaper. Do I spend it now and have fun, or do I spend it later (but possibly be dead by that point) and my bastard ungrateful children will get their undeserving hands on my just rewards. Tough one!

Some of them have calculated less than perfectly, shall we say.

Either way, you can't take it with you when you go, but then again, there isn't that much left of it anyway, for the average boomer.

You would have thought they would have put some kind of structure in place for their old age retirement, but no, they were too busy having fun, fun, fun, until their daddy took their tv away...

Just my ill-informed observations. Don't take them too seriously.
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
Tail Gunner said:
captain_shane said:
This is more divide and conquer by the tribe.

If people simply educated themselves, no one would be able to divide and conquer them.

If you leave the gate open and a wolf eats your sheep, who is to blame -- you or the wolf?


See my point about 'education' in the post I just made (before seeing yours).

You are right of course, but it's not so simple, and nor should we be so brutal and black and white in our judgement. Imho.
 
Tail Gunner said:
If people simply educated themselves, no one would be able to divide and conquer them.

If you leave the gate open and a wolf eats your sheep, who is to blame -- you or the wolf?

It is the state's job to educate the population, not "themselves". You can't trust people to start picking up textbooks and learning trades. If the state is doing a piss-poor job of educating, then it's on purpose.
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
TigerMandingo said:
Tail Gunner said:
If people simply educated themselves, no one would be able to divide and conquer them.

If you leave the gate open and a wolf eats your sheep, who is to blame -- you or the wolf?

It is the state's job to educate the population, not "themselves". You can't trust people to start picking up textbooks and learning trades. If the state is doing a piss-poor job of educating, then it's on purpose.

What you just stated is so bizarre on so many levels that I do not even know where to start. The original purpose of the state was two-fold: to protect the citizenry from foreign invasion and to provide police and fire protection. Almost everything else is superfluous -- and is ultimately designed for control of the citizenry.

People successfully learned trades themselves, or through apprenticeship, for hundreds of years. I myself have learned far more myself than I ever did by obtaining three university degrees -- and obtained far better quality through my own studies. Unfortunately, a university degree is now considered an entry key to many fields, which again is more de facto state control.

Of course the state is doing "a piss-poor job of educating" children on purpose, including purposely hiring ignorant teachers. The purpose of the State is control, which is why you ideally do not want it involved in more than protecting the citizenry from foreign invasion and providing police and fire protection. Modern society is proof of the State's failure. Ninety percent of all problems suffered by individuals stem from their not acting responsibly. They want the State to spoon feed them education and to tell them what to think. The State happily obliges, turns them into wage slaves, and taxes them into poverty.
 
Tail Gunner said:
Modern society is proof of the State's failure.

Failure? When is the last time you've been outside?

Our roads, highways, infrastructure are all functioning. I wonder who erected those? Electric grid works pretty good. People aren't cannibalizing each other. I know on the internet it's "muh we're all doomed" and "muh free markets!" but the real world is quite different.

The state serves a lot more purpose than "protecting the citizenry" (whatever the hell that means).
 
Top