Fighting The Fourth Reich

[Kinser79]

(08-29-2017, 06:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: So far as I can tell, nobody has ever called Boomers "Generation W".

Actually I believe that Eric has on his attrocious website that looks like it hasn't been updated since 1994. And I did once or twice during the Bush II administration. Holding him up as a prime example of Boomer incompotence. But Boomers call themselves Boomers so that's the name everyone is stuck with even if we could assign a letter to every generation which seems impractical. The reason that X, Y, and Z have been used is because these letters often represent an unknown quantity in Algebra. I suppose N could also be used similarly.

Now it is time for Occam's razor.

Quote:It is difficult to discern the politics of this generation. If the Silent are any indicator, I expect it to begin very conformist as a "me too" generation,

This assumes that Generation Zed will express themselves exactly like the Silents did. We have no reason to expect them too. After all Millenials have not expressed them exactly like the GIs did or Xers the Lost, or for that matter Boomers the Missionaries. That being said even if they adopt a "me too" methodology at least for the foreseeable future that means conservative. The mood is shifting right after decades of being left as is to be expected.

Quote: With Generation X we saw a voting pattern that made the difference in the 1980 election by going more sharply toward Reagan

I don't think that Xers made the difference in the Reagan Revolution. I'll tell you why. In 1980 the youngest voters were born in 1962. Arguably the first year of the X cohorts, maybe the second depending on where one draws the Boomer/Xer line. So we're talking about a fraction of a fraction. The Youth vote in 1980 was Boomer dominated. Now if we're talking 1984 that is a different story as the entire 18-22 demographic would be Xers, and include the 23-in-1984 if you insist on the cut off being 1961.

What does this tell us about Xers in 1984? That they preferred the incumbent over a return to the 1970s which Mondale represented.

Quote:Generation X became less conservative with time as Republicans doubled down on such social issues as abortion, gay rights, anti-feminism, and the Fundamentalist agenda, but it was more attuned to free-market ideas and less hostile to corporate power than any generation since the Lost Generation. Few conservatives predicted that X secularism and libertarian values on sexuality would be an open door for liberalism within Generation X. 

I would argue that X hasn't become more liberal, but rather that the things that they are liberal about are issues that the liberals have used to gain their votes. The GOP's pandering to conservatism on sexual and cultural issues was pandering to Silents and older Boomers mainly. Groups more likely to oppose them than X on economic issues.

As I've told Eric in the past, people don't become more liberal or conservative as they age, what happens instead is that which is considered liberal or conservative changes.

Quote:....The hack that Kinser shows in this video

I will admit that David Cullen is perhaps a novice amateur when it comes to generational theory, his main bailiwick is discussion of technology. I'm not even sure if he's read S&H unlike say Styxhexenhammer666, who I would be surprised if he hadn't considering that he edits and republishes herbology books from the 17th century. That being said if we give credence to polls and actual votes of people between 18-24 now (whether they are Millie Civics or Zed Adaptives is irrelevant at this point) then we must conclude that the youth is trending right.

Bear in mind in 2016 an 18 year old was born in 1998 and a 24 year old was born in 1992.

If the X/Millie line is around 1982 like S&H wrote, this means that even if these people are not an actual generation in and of themselves, they are definitely the later wave of Millies. Assuming a 20 year generation of humans 1982-1992 would be Millie^1 and 1992-2002 would be Millie^2.

It could be possible that what is happening is that Millie^2 is taking up the name of Generation Z because they are alienated from the older half of the generation. Indeed, there is evidence that this is relatively common at least in the current saeculum what with Aquarian Boomers and Disco Boomers, Atari Xers and Nintendo Xers, why should Millies be different?

Quote: seems to express wishful thinking more than anything else about politics. "X" and "Millennial" will be the strongest influences upon this generation, with Boomers likely to appear either as having grandparent-like influence as relics of a time when black-and-white television was the norm and before the Interstate Highway System was largely built or as old political figures (like Donald Trump this time or FDR in the last Crisis Era) to be recognized for greatness or to be rejected for awfulness.

Well I know of one Boomer politician that some of this set of cohorts revile, she lost the youth vote to Trump. As my son said of HRC "She represents everything wrong with society why would anyone vote for her?" Obviously he wasn't old enough to vote in the last election but he would have likely voted for Trump and I haven't checked but I suspect when he registered to vote he registered Republican, though he really has no use for partisan politics--but FL is a closed primary state.

Quote:Homelander, Digital native, Zee, or Zed youth are yet to enter adulthood. Unlike Generation X, which was clearly much less pretentious about its culture having any educational or moral content and was much more reactionary on economics than its elders, the current child generation (Homelander, Digital native, Zee, or Zed youth) have yet to graduate from high school. For most whom we can expect to become leaders they have yet to enter college, and there they get to encounter adult ideas generally unavailable to those who go no further than High School or take a strictly-vocational course. They have yet to recognize the superficiality of the digital world.  They will get some hard knocks in the workplace and in economic life.

College doesn't mean the same thing as it did when you went. These days going to college means that you were dumb enough to pay money to be indoctrinated with leftist nonsense. Maybe it made sense to pay money for an "education" before the internet existed but these kids have spent their entire lives exposed to adult ideas online. In fact they have never not been exposed to them which makes them different from previous generations, and even waves of generations if in fact what we are dealing with is just the second half of the Millenial Generation.

Quote:That hack does suggest a positive in recognizing thrift as a merit in a world of debt. But the solution to personal debt is not self-denial.

I know that this is probably an alien concept to a Boomer but saving to buy something rather than going into debt for immediate gratification is not the same thing as self-denial. Rather it is merely having a lower time preference. Furthermore given the way technology and prices of manufactured goods go it is actually better to wait. That Ishit you want will be half-off in six months for example.

It is to be expected that persons who have live all or most of their lives in times of economic distress should be more strongly K selected.

Quote: We need remember that government debt allows personal saving.

No it doesn't. Government debt is differed taxation. The reason that people buy treasury bonds or bills (depending on the maturity date) is because they know that the government has the power to tax the population. Even if the debt is merely recycled the population has to be taxed to service that debt even if it does nothing else.

Quote:It is difficult to save if rents and taxes are both high

That sounds like an argument for the government to not spend tons of money on a bunch of nonsense. I really don't care if it is food stamps or invading Turdworldistan.

Quote: I can see the next adult generation finding ways to cut corners in the cost of living, and the most effective way that I can see is to move away from high-cost areas. If they must move from California to Ohio to take Grandma with senile dementia or Grandpa with Parkinsonism and find that they can do better economically working as a retail clerk in Dreariness, Ohio than as a technician in Silicon Valley because the rent is a third as much in Ohio, then maybe they will stay in Ohio. If you can live better in Dreariness, Ohio because the rent is as third as much and your wages are cut by a half, you might tolerate the ugly urban scene, the monotonous expanses of farmland, and having to shovel snow.

We delve into the world of subjectives now. But there are objective counters here.

1. Moving in with Grandma/Grandpa reguardless their health is probably a good idea. Grandma/Grandpa likely own their own home, in some cases it is completely paid off (so the only "rent" necessary would be covering the property taxes and necessary maintenance).
2. If one's cost of living is lower it doesn't really matter if one's salary is lower. No matter how much you make you can only buy so good a set of cloths, so nice a car, so big a house and on and on. Seriously Bill Gates is a multiGorillianaire, and he buys his cloths from Wal Mart.

As to the subjective. I've been to California. The most I can say about it is the weather is nice. Otherwise it is crowded and filled with people who are largely lunatics. I can say the same about New York City. You couldn't pay me to live in either now, and I've lived in both. NYC as a Civilian, California when I was in the USN. So given the choice between living in Commiefornia surrounded by people who would be convinced that my boyfriend is a Nazi because he is bald while white or living in Dreariness Ohio I'd pick Ohio every time. But I'm fortunate that my family is all located in Florida. Yeah it is god's waiting room but most people down here are not insane (I'm far enough north that it is still the South)

Quote:Yes, I understand that Kinser now sees Donald Trump as the most wonderful thing to have ever happened to American political life and to be the wave of a glorious future of national pride and of economic growth predicated upon extreme inequality.

Not quite. Inequality of outcome is a result of liberty. One can either be equal or they can be free. Given that choice I pick freedom.

Here's a nice book about some of my ideas. Its original price was 1 Shilling in 1899.

https://books.google.com/books?id=lQdDAQ...e&q&f=true

I'm going to leave the rest of your post PBR because it is just more of your pipe dreams about guillotines. Those are neither insightful nor interesting.