RSS
From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:
Generational Gobbledygook: Astrology for MBAs
Steve Sailer
February 08, 2023
As we are constantly lectured, race does not exist. Yet, almost nobody points out that the conventional wisdom that races are wholly arbitrary social constructs is actually far truer for the popular concept of “generations,” such as baby boomers, millennials, and Alphas.
For instance, it’s argued that races aren’t scientific because nobody can determine precisely where one ends and the next begins. Of course, before 1492 the Atlantic Ocean was a virtually impenetrable barrier to gene flow from Europe and Africa to the Americas, with the Pacific, Sahara, and Himalayas also standing out as blockades.
In contrast, the generations so beloved by marketing consultants (I call generational thinking “astrology for MBAs”) are far more arbitrary. Our definitions are anchored around a single historical fact: The number of births in the United States suddenly leaped upward in 1946 by almost 20 percent, kicking off the famous baby boom in which births remained high into the 1960s.
Read the whole thing there.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
It’s an interesting argument well advanced but it’s pretty clear that generations are real, if you ever try to talk to a young person nowadays, or observe the insufferable selfishness and out-of-touch confidence of the boomers.
———
OT — Railroad workers had a good deal with days off.
A Canadian company came up with pseudo-Japanese just in time garbage and America adopted it.
This meant that, at the height of the Covid lockdowns, rail workers couldn’t call in sick.
Rail companies also were making trains as long as possible, which meant it took forever to discover problems.
Rail workers struck over this.
In the tradition of Harry Truman, a Democrat president forced the strike to end, without resolving any of their concerns.
As a result, a train containing vinyl chloride derailed and caused an environmental catastrophe near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border.
Republicans: Democrats are the real racists!
———–
Hugh Hewitt had a good Stevism this morning: the rescue of the Turkish/Syrian earthquake victims proves gender nonsense isn’t real, in a disaster you take care of women and children first, all that gender stuff goes out the widow.
Basically, designed to misdirect, intelligent and annoyed, but gullible, young white men from the fairly obvious destruction wrought by the rise of the Jews pushing minoritarianism and delegitimization of the American nation ... and instead get them droning on pointlessly about non-existent generational contention and attacking their parents, rather than focusing on the bonds and shared interests ethnic kinship ("ourselves and our posterity").Replies: @Pure Coincidence
Once again, Steve hits it out of the park!
Steve always brings a debate podium to a gun fight.
Demographic labels are just a version of the old hack journalist chestnut — the “trend piece.” It’s just a way to create a “thing” out of nothing so you can talk about it. Plus, generalizing about “Millennials” or “Gen Z” makes the writer sound like a smarty-pants sociologist when they’re really just a grown up bitching about “kids today.”
Also, this.
Overall, an entertaining evening.
But let's see some action. Impeach Biden for border treason.
Yeah, the Senate will vote it down. So what. The point is he is treasonously not just neglecting his core duty to prevent invasion, but helping the invaders out. And that point needs to be hammered home.
Though you mentioned them, I can’t tell from the article whether you read the Strauss & Howe books. If Generational Theory is Astrology for MBA’s, then Generations and The Fourth Turning are these Astrologists’s bible.
Strauss & Howe developed the terms and the spans for generations going back to the mid-1400’s! in England. (That last bit is important.) They have their theory, they spent a lot of time making everything fit, and those who want to think of people in these terms have really taken these books to heart.
I read them (review pending for about 5 years on my blog). These writers bring up many examples for every single one of their birth cohorts, of the 4 archetypes (Profit, Nomad, Hero, and Artist), over 7 Saeculum, for every one of the set of 4 “turnings” (High, Awakening, Unravelling, Crisis). It’s all very neat and orderly, so I see why people get into these books.
Here’s where it’s like fortune-telling or astrology but with the twist that it’s after the fact. About the many examples, this is after the fact, so they can be very detailed, the opposite of in Astrology. “This band played a song with lyrics that said THIS, which, of course, one would expect from a Nomad cohort during the unravelling turning.” “This politician did THIS, due to ….” same thing. Well, here’s the thing. Thousands of songs were popular that year. Politicians did thousand of things that year. Strauss & Howe had their choice of any cultural or political thing that went on in the years they were looking at to use as examples. That’s EASIER than Astrology.
Yes, it’s pretty bogus. That’s not just because one can define the generations differently than S&H. It’s bogus because there are people of all opinions on important issues from every birth year. People like to say “OK, Boomer” for the same reason as the Boomers made fun of the older people back in the 1960s.. The younger crowd does not yet know how stupid they are at that stage in life. Unfortunately, nowadays, that’s all on display on the internet.
Strauss & Howe developed the terms and the spans for generations going back to the mid-1400's! in England. (That last bit is important.) They have their theory, they spent a lot of time making everything fit, and those who want to think of people in these terms have really taken these books to heart.
I read them (review pending for about 5 years on my blog). These writers bring up many examples for every single one of their birth cohorts, of the 4 archetypes (Profit, Nomad, Hero, and Artist), over 7 Saeculum, for every one of the set of 4 "turnings" (High, Awakening, Unravelling, Crisis). It's all very neat and orderly, so I see why people get into these books.
Here's where it's like fortune-telling or astrology but with the twist that it's after the fact. About the many examples, this is after the fact, so they can be very detailed, the opposite of in Astrology. "This band played a song with lyrics that said THIS, which, of course, one would expect from a Nomad cohort during the unravelling turning." "This politician did THIS, due to ...." same thing. Well, here's the thing. Thousands of songs were popular that year. Politicians did thousand of things that year. Strauss & Howe had their choice of any cultural or political thing that went on in the years they were looking at to use as examples. That's EASIER than Astrology.
Yes, it's pretty bogus. That's not just because one can define the generations differently than S&H. It's bogus because there are people of all opinions on important issues from every birth year. People like to say "OK, Boomer" for the same reason as the Boomers made fun of the older people back in the 1960s.. The younger crowd does not yet know how stupid they are at that stage in life. Unfortunately, nowadays, that's all on display on the internet.Replies: @J.Ross
The Boomers are objectively different because of the societal changes and/or destruction.
What really happened is that the ctrl-left Communists conducted their Long March through the American Institutions from the 1950s on, and hardly anyone did anything about it, in ANY generation. The Boomers were around at the time to enjoy the drugs and sex, is all.Replies: @J.Ross
About the only "objective" difference with "the Boomers" is that they are about the whitest generation born in American history. (The prior-20-30s born are perhaps slightly whiter.) Pretty much "peak white". Every following generation has been notably less white and dumber.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Cagey Beast
I didn’t get to the American/English thing from the Strauss & Howe books. All of their “generational theory” is based on the English and American peoples. They wrote that in the beginning. Once you import the rest of the world, I’d figure all of it no longer applies.
This Crisis turning we’re in now will not necessarily turn into another High a few years from now*. I coulda’ told them that.
BTW, after writing here, I am pretty sure you did NOT read these books. I suggest you take a look at them, just for fun. Aren’t you an MBA? You’ll probably like the way it all fits together.
Finally, again, “conventional wisdom” is not what the ctrl-left publications you read for work say. Conventional wisdom most certainly is that there are different races. Ask your average person who’s not a brain-dead Millennial. (oops, I did it again.)
.
* They hedged their bets by admitting it may not, but that wasn’t based on the immigration invasion.
Not only is it an actual example of an arbitrary social construct, it’s one that’s considered perfectly acceptable as a basis for openly-expressed hatred. Ageism bad, but anti-boomerism and anti-millennialism good.
Also, culture doesn’t work in decades, it shifts the line halfway: 1955-1965 looks more contiguous in every way than either 1950-1960 or 1960-1970. Maybe this question hinges on whether you want to do math or make art with this information.
OT — ChatGPT split personality thread:
https://twitter.com/Aristos_Revenge/status/1622840424527265792
Was any certain Russian generation objectively different when there was destruction of society there a century ago, Mr. Ross? The complaint I read a lot goes “You people were around, and you didn’t DO anything to stop it!” Some were on one side, others, the other side.
What really happened is that the ctrl-left Communists conducted their Long March through the American Institutions from the 1950s on, and hardly anyone did anything about it, in ANY generation. The Boomers were around at the time to enjoy the drugs and sex, is all.
Thanks I read a long summary by Strauss and Howe of one of their books as a cover story in The Atlantic. I had similar reactions to you.
archived link:
https://archive.ph/MHF6lhttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/toc/1992/12/https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/WNN2AuQ1oa0QfGO3n5Pn6hf2Fcg=/0x0:3251x4347/187x250/media/img/issues/1992/12/01/original.jpgReplies: @Steve Sailer
---------
OT -- Railroad workers had a good deal with days off.
A Canadian company came up with pseudo-Japanese just in time garbage and America adopted it.
This meant that, at the height of the Covid lockdowns, rail workers couldn't call in sick.
Rail companies also were making trains as long as possible, which meant it took forever to discover problems.
Rail workers struck over this.
In the tradition of Harry Truman, a Democrat president forced the strike to end, without resolving any of their concerns.
As a result, a train containing vinyl chloride derailed and caused an environmental catastrophe near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border.
Republicans: Democrats are the real racists!
-----------
Hugh Hewitt had a good Stevism this morning: the rescue of the Turkish/Syrian earthquake victims proves gender nonsense isn't real, in a disaster you take care of women and children first, all that gender stuff goes out the widow.Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @AnotherDad
That there are trends associated with cohorts is true and obvious. That’s not what Steve is arguing against.
Unrelated, but of interest.
From the Claremont Review of Books (thanks John Derbyshire), a discussion of the dangers of nuclear war. Two excerpts and a link below.
Here we bump up against two sinister propaganda tropes effectively deployed by our ruling class. The first, which I have termed the “celebration parallax,” holds that the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it. Hence when some Biden apparatchik, or the president himself, denounces Russia as authoritarian, pledges to weaken the country, and even calls for regime change in Moscow, well, that’s fine, because the good guys are saying it. Anyone who quotes those same words to point out how they might be ill-received in the Kremlin is immediately denounced as a Putin apologist.
At any rate, it is surely disconcerting to hear the same people who denounce Russia as poor, backward, besotted, demographically crippled, undeveloped, a “gas station with nukes,” as at the same time a grave threat to the cool-country club. Are the cool countries and their order really that weak? If so, don’t they face more pressing threats than Russia?
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/nuclear-autumn/
---------
OT -- Railroad workers had a good deal with days off.
A Canadian company came up with pseudo-Japanese just in time garbage and America adopted it.
This meant that, at the height of the Covid lockdowns, rail workers couldn't call in sick.
Rail companies also were making trains as long as possible, which meant it took forever to discover problems.
Rail workers struck over this.
In the tradition of Harry Truman, a Democrat president forced the strike to end, without resolving any of their concerns.
As a result, a train containing vinyl chloride derailed and caused an environmental catastrophe near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border.
Republicans: Democrats are the real racists!
-----------
Hugh Hewitt had a good Stevism this morning: the rescue of the Turkish/Syrian earthquake victims proves gender nonsense isn't real, in a disaster you take care of women and children first, all that gender stuff goes out the widow.Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @AnotherDad
Yes but age factors into it too. An old woman is no more valuable than an old man. A young man is more valuable than an old woman, EEBE
But what if she is a 'Wise Latina' ?
Yes, but in this case it’s a foul ball
‘Generation’ is just a somewhat arbitrary and imprecise label society attaches to long periods of time. Since time is very real (most real of all physical quantities), generations are real too. For example, I can think of many similarities with my father’s way of thinking, but almost no similarity with my grandfather’s way of thinking. Similarly, some commonness between me and my son’s thinking but little between my son and my father. So, my empirical observation is, it takes 60 years for people of same family to become mutually unintelligible ‘immigrants’ in time.
https://archive.ph/4z603
Agreed, or by big events. I’d say the fifties ran from the end of the Korean War until JFK was killed, or the beginning of the Vietnam War.
Either way, a great time to be alive, and if we were a sane society we’d look at what we were doing then and do more of that.
The sixties ran through Nixon’s resignation, or the end of Vietnam. We fight too many wars.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/flynn-effect-of-rising-iqs-sputtering-out-among-rich-countries/#comment-5680978
That’s the link I meant to post above. Turns out when you post just a link, you’re not allowed to edit it.
Generation X was originally the title of a pop-sociological paperback book of interviews with teenagers, published in 1964 and forgotten until the band took it as a name. (Before that they’d briefly named themselves “LSD,” which in the mid-70s was equally retro.)
What really happened is that the ctrl-left Communists conducted their Long March through the American Institutions from the 1950s on, and hardly anyone did anything about it, in ANY generation. The Boomers were around at the time to enjoy the drugs and sex, is all.Replies: @J.Ross
Several were very different, but always because of things happening to them. Steve’s arguments keep bringing that up (“were things different for”) and not talking about the people. Complicating factor here: people can self-identify. Teenager was an invented, mass marketed thing which boomer teens embraced.
They forgot to ask it: why separate out the smartest cohort of Asians? And for Jews? But not for Europeans? Seems awfully convenient…
Yet it’s done all the time. Especially here..
https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_detail/public/article_images/2018/03/11/663987.jpg?itok=5bNwimARReplies: @Renard
Disagree. Generational identity is sort of like nationalism: yes, it can be artificially induced, and the fringes are always likely to fray and break away, but the core is usually pretty cohesive enough for the explanation to hold as a heuristic truism.
A good parallel is the rise of “Irish” as a national identity. Ireland was long known as an island of a million little kings and kingdoms, each more interested in fighting each other than foreign threats —for example, the first English (Anglo-Norman) invaders arrived in the 1190s at the request of an minor Irish king, who wanted to use the super-soliders of his day to crush rival Irish kings. Irish people at that time were really more akin to North American Native American tribes, who always hated rival tribes more than whites and were quite willing to ally with whites against their rival redmen.
Ireland’s geography helped to secure this “million little kingdoms” ideal. While today we think of the rolling open fields of Ireland, in reality for most of its history the island was heavily forested (hence all the legends about fairies in the woods), hilly, and isolated, with only the Shannon River offering any really penetration from the outside. (the mass deforestation occurred when the English got fed up with trying to subdue the place and ripped out every tree they could find to sell off and keep the land bare to the naked eye).
Anyway, it took a very long time for the Irish to throw off the English yoke, mostly because local tribes always were willing to turncoat towards the English against their fellow Irish. But there always existed an idea of “Irish national identity”, going back to 11th century. Every hundred years or so a new crop of Irish upper-class dudes united in the idea of “Irish identity” and would set out to rebel with high hopes only to see their hopes dashed.
But despite the losses, the idea of “Irish” people being united never went away, becoming part of poetry and songs and literature that made the Gaels famous. Abroad the Irish tended to gather together and forget home grudges. At the core, there was something true about “Irish” identity, even if it at the fringes it kept fraying apart.
Same thing with generations. Yes, much of its fringes is marketing, but a person born in 1979 is way different from someone conceived at Woodstock and is going to hate someone who actually went to Woodstock — mostly because they won’t shut up about a silly little proto-Burning Man concert where they were all high, assaulting one another, and listening to drugged-up musicians.
https://youtu.be/fnJXr1rTgis
2. End of last Ice Age to about 5000 BC. Regeneration of forest to about 80% cover.
3. 5000-4000 BC. Little forest clearance.
4. 4000 BC. Start of cereal and pasture farming. A burst of deforestation for about 150 years followed by a similar period of regrowth.
5. 4000-500 BC. Gradual clearance of all woodland from hills.
6. 500 BC to 800 AD. Expansion of farming. Clearance of much of lowlands.
7. 800-1650 AD. Clearance of most of remaining woodland.It is fair to add that the article also blames the expansion of the British Empire for the "export of large quantities of Irish timber for house construction and shipbuilding". That seems unlikely. Nearly all British possessions had their own timber in plenty.But it seems from the above that a very large amount, perhaps most, of Irish deforestation occurred well before the earliest English incursions.Replies: @Corn, @Alden
This generation blames the former generation for all the ills of the world, who blamed the former generation to themselves for all the ills of the world, who blamed the preceding generation for all the ills of the world. Rinse. Repeat.
Or a dork.
Right. Among other things, I’m saying our current system of 16 to 19 year long “generations” is too long for most purposes, and would be better focused if replaced by a 10-year-long cohort, which can be easily subdivided.
When a crisis occurs, it sort of crystallizes the groups falling into those four phases into generations. Those generations then live out their lives in reaction to that crisis, setting in place the conditions that shape the future generations, including sowing the seeds of the next crisis which can be expected about one human lifespan after the previous one.
What interests me about Strauss and Howe are their predictions, many but not all of which have come to pass. If you think all young people are like a 20-year-old Gen Xer in 1990, you might expect the 20yo of 2010 to be like them. S&H, back in the 90s, said guess again, the 20yo in 2010 would be shaped by very different forces than the 20 yo of 1990 - forces that would create a conformist and rule-bound generation in contrast to the lone-wolf Gen Xer. Who was right? (Some insist on interpreting Millenials as extreme individualists, but they are absolutely monolithic in their devotion to superficial differences as a cover for rigid conformity.)
Because S&H deal in numbers and predictions, some people interpret it as science and build up unrealistic expectations about what it can predict, expectations that no sociological theory can live up to. But it's demographics, not science, so the fair comparison is to compare its predictions to those of competing sociological theories. And that is where S&H starts to look pretty darn good.
S&H do tend to bury the reader in an avalanche of facts which may or may not be cherry-picked to support their thesis. But again, look at the predictions. 20 years ago, everyone who mattered was in favor of immigration and foreign entanglements. Not so much any more. This was predicted by S&H as part of general turning inward as we plow through our crisis.
S&H make it clear that there is no guarantee of a triumph over crisis. Indeed they spoke of the 2020-era crisis as a time of maximum danger.
The fact has too many ifs and buts.
The historical breeding rate remained constant through the 20th century. What really happened in 1946 was the pent-up frustration of the Depression-War period allowed the “put-off” people who were on average older than most first-time parents to breed.
Had the thirties and early forties been “normal” the rates would have been above normal anyway because population grew in the 1920s. The number of boomer kids who had Grandpa-age-daddies was enormous and embarrassed the shit out of some of us. (“Nice of your grandpa to come” “Uh, that was daddy”). And nobody ever said, Oh, sorry about that.
The theories on all this are mostly wrong. Victor Hugo’s world, post Waterloo, was a France “filled with old men and orphans” but Victor still buried his son and most of the youngsters of his later era. He died at 86, phenomenal when you consider that as late as the Commune of the 1870s he had to hide in basements and live off pidgins he caught and cooked himself.
Did France learn its lesson from Hugo’s century? Hardly. In World War I France lost more soldiers in the trenches than America lost in ALL her wars put together. Put simpler, a century after the Retreat from Moscow and Waterloo, the French managed to break the record for war dead again. Generations didn’t help them at all. Or being French makes it irrelevant.
Perhaps a better way to sub divide and categorise the post WW2 era into generalised little epochs is to consider the economic climate pertaining during these epochs, in particular real annual average growth, the ‘feel good factor’ that really matters the most. A little further digging that the best correlation with this feel good factor is the global oil price. The lower the price the better the feel good factor.
Thus the years from 1945 to roughly 1970 were pure solid gold. 1970 to 73 was marked decline. 1973 to the mid 1980s were absolute shit.
Thus the years from 1945 to roughly 1970 were pure solid gold. 1970 to 73 was marked decline. 1973 to the mid 1980s were absolute shit.Replies: @Steve Sailer
But how do you relate economic conditions to year of birth: how long of a lag do you use?
My view is that these are difficult question, so the least we can do is simplify how we label era of birth. Instead of using 16 to 19 year long “generations,” just use the decade of birth. This makes it much easier to do the arithmetic in your head.
If there is any significant analysis to be gleaned from this, it can start with the observation that youth of the postwar bulge would have been spoiled collectively but deprived as individuals-- in psychological, not economic, terms. Those of later cohorts, in smaller families and classes, had the opposite experience. They got the individual attention, good or bad, that we bulge brats missed out on.
One underreported effect which completely corrodes the concept of generational coherence is that of US conscription laws of the time, which changed dramatically. Men born in years from 1946 to about 1954 faced an active draft with various levels of an active war in their nineteenth year. Those born in the next few years had only to register. Then Steve's lucky cohort, born in the last 33 months of the 1950s, never had to register at all, the only such group of Americans since the 1870s. Those born from 1/1/60 onward, e.g. one recent president, reverted to the middle group's experience. Of course, women only felt this indirectly, through brothers and boyfriends.Replies: @Feryl, @Steve Sailer, @Philip Neal
Or, in return direction, “geezers”, “farts”, and “fuddy-duddies”.
The things young people say about Boomers these days are exactly what Boomers said about their elders when Boomers were younger.
I remember a Mad Magazine cartoon from the late sixties. A teenager read something critical of “youth today” to his father, who agreed. Then the kid pointed out the quote was from Ancient Greece.
In fact, they would say this while rolling their eyes and drawing a quadrilateral in the air with their fingers. Now they must endure "Hey Boomer!" gibes from the new generations of whippersnappers. Cruel circle of time.Replies: @MEH 0910
Huh? “Teens” go back to Andy Hardy. Nobody “embraced” anything, except the opposite sex.
ChatGPT has Third World sweatshops of its own:
Someone has to read that 💩, and it’s not Buffy or LaTiQua.
I'm feeling old before my time.
Are Native Americans and Pacific Islanders really at the bottom? The list seems generally correct (although you make a good point about the way we often choose to lump and split in this discussion), but I’m surprised it put NAs and PIs below blacks and abos.
Generations can make sense when a true cultural phenomenon occurs, but the problem is that there aren’t enough of those and they don’t occur at regular enough intervals to slice the population meaningfully into generations. The end of WWII and the birth rate surge would count, and so might the first group of kids to grow up online (though that’s a bit fuzzy because you have to figure out if the cultural impact is from ubiquitous internet, ubiquitous smart phones, or ubiquitous social media). But are there enough major breaks in our history to make meaningful distinctions in between those two events?
Correct. Races are mostly real. Generations are somewhat real, but not too much.
https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_detail/public/article_images/2018/03/11/663987.jpg?itok=5bNwimARReplies: @Renard
So, we have meta-ChatGPT already.
I’m feeling old before my time.
You forgot the most ridiculous aspect of a 19 year generation. A significant chunk of the latest boomers are the children of the earliest boomers. If your generational cohort includes parent and child, you know you’re just making shit up.
I offered up the generational-astrological comparison here at least half a dozen times in 2020, according to the search function. Is it sinking in now? Did anyone beat me? (Well, my Teutonic mother did. How many of today’s snowflakes can imagine a hearty parental thrashing, let alone remember one?)
If there is any significant analysis to be gleaned from this, it can start with the observation that youth of the postwar bulge would have been spoiled collectively but deprived as individuals– in psychological, not economic, terms. Those of later cohorts, in smaller families and classes, had the opposite experience. They got the individual attention, good or bad, that we bulge brats missed out on.
One underreported effect which completely corrodes the concept of generational coherence is that of US conscription laws of the time, which changed dramatically. Men born in years from 1946 to about 1954 faced an active draft with various levels of an active war in their nineteenth year. Those born in the next few years had only to register.
Then Steve’s lucky cohort, born in the last 33 months of the 1950s, never had to register at all, the only such group of Americans since the 1870s. Those born from 1/1/60 onward, e.g. one recent president, reverted to the middle group’s experience. Of course, women only felt this indirectly, through brothers and boyfriends.
Thanks to Steve for a general interest post.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/12/the-new-generation-gap/536934/
archived link:
https://archive.ph/MHF6l
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/toc/1992/12/
Quibble: the bit about how other countries work is actually explained in the book. England has cycles and archetypes but they’re different from ours. One interesting thing about the cycles is they come directly out of the Glorious Revolution and its after-effects, which include our Revolution. So if you were to clear out the over-congratulatory after-the-fact prediction and repurpose the same anecdata, it would be a kind of long term cultural history of the effects of importing William and Mary.
“We fight too many wars”
A West Point Grad was hired by the company. Everyone said to me “You have a lot in common”.
Well, no. I graduated into an Army that was focused on facing off against the Warsaw Pact and by the time I resigned my commission, five years,later the Commies were gone and the Army had not fought a real war for eighteen years. This fellow graduated in the nineties into an Army that fought Desert Storm, then put it’s dick into Somalia, Serbia and every other fly-blown shit-hole for the next thirty years and counting.
I was busy doing productive work while he was running around for twenty years wrecking places to the detriment of America and the rest of the world. They call it “Duty”.
Only eight years apart, but the U.S. Army he and I served in were completely different.
Yeah, for those who require water-tight logical proof in science as is required in mathematics.
The rest of can rest assured that probabilities are good enough for science.
Mass culture and marketing focused on teenagers definitely became a thing back in the early 20th century, and it’s accelerated ever since. By the way, the Silent Generation was the first “rock and roll” generation of the distinctive post-WW2 youth culture, it wasn’t the Boomers (Boomers did not dominate youth culture until the 70’s).
Every now and then, Steve alights on a conversational topic, where the commentariat will take a position and we’ll all have this babbling back-and-forth, with no concrete conclusions, until we see the next squirrel. Kind of like a dog chasing his/her tail for 3-4 minutes, then suddenly stopping and realizing, “Hey! There’s my chew toy!”.
It’s one thing for a nation to rebound from military losses. It’s another thing for a nation to rebound from a successful propaganda war and open borders.
The only thing “Irish” people seem to be united about now is that “Irish” only applies to persons with an Irish birth certificate (or naturalization). That is, someone who qualifies for an Irish passport. The concept of “Irish” implying an extended family is now considered blasphemy.
Aside, 2023 marks the 225th anniversary of the Year of the French from which we have many beloved rebel songs:
If there is any significant analysis to be gleaned from this, it can start with the observation that youth of the postwar bulge would have been spoiled collectively but deprived as individuals-- in psychological, not economic, terms. Those of later cohorts, in smaller families and classes, had the opposite experience. They got the individual attention, good or bad, that we bulge brats missed out on.
One underreported effect which completely corrodes the concept of generational coherence is that of US conscription laws of the time, which changed dramatically. Men born in years from 1946 to about 1954 faced an active draft with various levels of an active war in their nineteenth year. Those born in the next few years had only to register. Then Steve's lucky cohort, born in the last 33 months of the 1950s, never had to register at all, the only such group of Americans since the 1870s. Those born from 1/1/60 onward, e.g. one recent president, reverted to the middle group's experience. Of course, women only felt this indirectly, through brothers and boyfriends.Replies: @Feryl, @Steve Sailer, @Philip Neal
“Generation Jones”, born from roughly 1955-1965, and the late 70’s/eighties generation, is the generation that is very overlooked. Interestingly, the guy who created the term Gen X originally was talking about later Boomers, not the cynical baby busters we now describe as Gen X. Another irony is that in the 90’s, Gen X really started to get a lot of hype by which point Gen Jones was basically forgotten even though they are numerically massive generation.
Where does the term Generation Jones come from?
archived link:
https://archive.ph/MHF6lhttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/toc/1992/12/https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/WNN2AuQ1oa0QfGO3n5Pn6hf2Fcg=/0x0:3251x4347/187x250/media/img/issues/1992/12/01/original.jpgReplies: @Steve Sailer
Thanks.
If there is any significant analysis to be gleaned from this, it can start with the observation that youth of the postwar bulge would have been spoiled collectively but deprived as individuals-- in psychological, not economic, terms. Those of later cohorts, in smaller families and classes, had the opposite experience. They got the individual attention, good or bad, that we bulge brats missed out on.
One underreported effect which completely corrodes the concept of generational coherence is that of US conscription laws of the time, which changed dramatically. Men born in years from 1946 to about 1954 faced an active draft with various levels of an active war in their nineteenth year. Those born in the next few years had only to register. Then Steve's lucky cohort, born in the last 33 months of the 1950s, never had to register at all, the only such group of Americans since the 1870s. Those born from 1/1/60 onward, e.g. one recent president, reverted to the middle group's experience. Of course, women only felt this indirectly, through brothers and boyfriends.Replies: @Feryl, @Steve Sailer, @Philip Neal
Baby Boomers tended to belong to large families so they got fewer presents per capita. I was often reminded of my fortunate son status as an only child, which I couldn’t really deny, in that, decades later, a French rock band requested to use my photo of all my Christmas loot as a cover for their single:
https://music.apple.com/bs/album/winter-warmer-split-single-the-sudden-death-of/741518816
Of course they’re not. This is nonsense.
One man’s astrology is another man’s forecasting.
The crisis will lead to a relative High (though well below where we were in the 90s) as it recedes, though, and the theory will continue to have believers.
Steve is correct, much better to group people by decade of birth. It is easier and less debatable. My parents had much in common , despite my father being born in 1943 and my mother being born in 1946. While my uncle, born in 1946 had very little in common with his wife who was a fellow boomer born in 1964. I recall attending my uncles wedding hanging out with the brides brother, a fellow Gen-xer. I was a teenager, just turned 14 and had more in common with the Bride than my uncle. She often would borrow my albums and me and my friends would often visit their house to hang out with her. Sadly the marriage lasted just 2 years.
Really iSteve? I defy you to show me the precise boundaries that separate the Atlantic from Indian, Pacific or Baltic. The Atlantic is a just a social construct.
Did Cloudflare shut down Takimag?
I don’t know what Boomer barriers you’re using, but even if you use 1946-1964, that would not be a significant chunk. In defining generational boundaries, S&H point out that the vast majority of people become first-time parents after turning 22.
Not if the nation doesn’t come out of it in one piece, which, as a Baby Doomer, is what I think. The authors did say something about how the War Between the States could have come out that way, with no High, but instead destruction of the nation. (Well, sure, but for Pickett’s Charge)
BTW, it’s an odd case that the “Civil War Saeculum” is missing its unravelling “turning”, so it has only 3 turnings. There was indeed an unravelling in reality, as we know the history, but I think this helped S&H with the big picture on their timeline.
Wiki does a decent job with this here, and some Dutch broad named Amanda van Eck Duymaer van Twist (with another author) wrote a whole paper based mostly on the tables in the books, with added political commentary to somehow trash Trump and people against big government here – the latter may be better than wiki for the terminology.
The only High the next generation will experience will come from stinkweed.
Sometimes I think 9/11 may have done that to the Millennials. In 2000 Strauss & Howe published "Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation." That didn't exactly happen. I think the Millennials are a Artist generation and Gen Z are the new Prophets. Gen Z has a Boomerish moralizing attitude, only with different morals.
BTW, S&H coined the term Millennials, and in their first book stated that 2020 would be a fateful year. Say what you want, but why Neil Howe isn't more famous, I don't know.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
The punk rockers I knew in the late seventies didn’t see themselves as a continuation of the sixties hippie generation and rejected much of the music, fashion, and politics of the sixties hippies. The Wikipedia article on them says, “key characteristics assigned to members are pessimism, distrust of government, and general cynicism.”
The optimistic sixties liberalism that thought government could solve societal problems had ended as it became apparent that those efforts had led to the high inflation of the seventies, increasing levels of crime, increased drug overdoses, rising out of wedlock births, and the failure of the best and the brightest in Vietnam. Generation Jones grew up in the midst of all that and missed out on the earlier prosperity that their older brothers and sisters grew up in. They saw hippies as not just represented by Woodstock but also by the murder and mayhem at Altamont, the Manson family, the deaths of several sixties musical icons, and the failures of sixties liberalism.
Strauss and Howe pointed to pop culture depictions of children to illustrate generational trends. Boomers were Dennis the Menace, mischievous but lovable, X-ers were Damien from the Omen, Millennials on the other hand were portrayed as positively angelic, really starting with John Hughes' late 80's movies, in which glowing Millennial kids were contrasted with mouthy and angst-ridden teens.
I may not remember the part about how other countries work, but I do remember that the authors’ point was that the continuum of English culture through it’s entrenchment in America was what they purported to describe. I don’t recall anything about generations in England from the “Revolutionary Saeculum” in the colonies onward. (Of course, the authors are Americans, and the book was about this country.)
BTW for iSteve and the rest: Wiki says the turnings, hence the generations, were 20-22 years long, with 4 of them – making a Saeculum – 80 to 90 years long.
That the generations were that length HAD to be the case for their whole theory of cyclic history. See, the parents of 2 generations ago on average were raising the current kids, and all that that (parents’) archetype experienced and also that archetype’s personality, as applied during that turning, resulted in these effects on those kids of that other archetype. From permissive parenting, coming around to strict, than back again, for example, with all of this stuff based on the big 80-90 year cycle.
This is where it gets hokey, as everything is nurture based, so each of the 4 archetypes being in the same stage of life during the same type turning every Saeculum acts similarly and then raises children the same way – in general, of course. There are plenty of examples to come by that help “prove” all this out.
Sorry for the massive commenting, but this is helping me write my review.
The theory in the Strauss & Howe books is all very tidy and the idea of cyclic, though one could call it “spiraling”, history is a neat concept. That’s why I think the books got so popular.
Additionally, I saw the guys as extremely prescient about this country. I read The Fourth Turning in ’97 or so, and thought “Unravelling? Whatchu talkin’ ’bout,
WillisStauss & Howe?” In my mind, the country was doing pretty well then. I picked it up in the mid-’00s, having (yes!) forgotten I’d ever read it before – for a while – and I thought then “Holey smokes, these guys were onto something!”However, this Unravelling turning has been going on for TOO long, not matching the timetable in the books. We haven’t seen the Crisis yet.
Exactly
The things young people say about Boomers these days are exactly what Boomers said about their elders when Boomers were younger.
I remember a Mad Magazine cartoon from the late sixties. A teenager read something critical of “youth today” to his father, who agreed. Then the kid pointed out the quote was from Ancient Greece.
“the mass deforestation [of Ireland] occurred when the English got fed up with trying to subdue the place and ripped out every tree they could find to sell off and keep the land bare to the naked eye”
I can’t find any evidence of that. Do you have any? The deforestation of Ireland seems to have happened in a series of waves going back as far as 4000 BC.
According to an authoritative Irish source (https://www.coillte.ie/a-brief-history-of-irelands-native-woodlands/) there were the following phases:
1. Ice age. Almost no trees in Ireland at all.
2. End of last Ice Age to about 5000 BC. Regeneration of forest to about 80% cover.
3. 5000-4000 BC. Little forest clearance.
4. 4000 BC. Start of cereal and pasture farming. A burst of deforestation for about 150 years followed by a similar period of regrowth.
5. 4000-500 BC. Gradual clearance of all woodland from hills.
6. 500 BC to 800 AD. Expansion of farming. Clearance of much of lowlands.
7. 800-1650 AD. Clearance of most of remaining woodland.
It is fair to add that the article also blames the expansion of the British Empire for the “export of large quantities of Irish timber for house construction and shipbuilding”. That seems unlikely. Nearly all British possessions had their own timber in plenty.
But it seems from the above that a very large amount, perhaps most, of Irish deforestation occurred well before the earliest English incursions.
England was a marine empire. The ever growing navy and merchant marine needed tall old growth oak trees to use as ships masts. Millions of them from the mid 1500s to the 1890s.
There were plenty of oak old growth forests in England. But the by then the only remaining forests were royal property and forest preserves, equivalent to national parks. Scotland was never heavily forested. But Ireland was.
Yes, the people of Ireland cut down the forests for firewood buildings furniture boats wagons carts and many other things for centuries. But it was the English need for tall old growth oak ships masts that accelerated the de forestation of Ireland. In fact, in the days of wooden ships the favored wood was first oak then elm . Elm is the most waterproof wood.
This information can be found in the libraries of the great universities.
One reason for the wealth of the New England mid Atlantic American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries was forestry and lumber exported to England for ship building, Especially the forests of very tall, straight old oak used in ships masts.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Muggles, @Jamsportle
Astrology is a way of placing categories down over a topic so that people are able to start discussing it. In the normal example, this is individual personalities. In this example, it is changed in average human personalities over time. This is useful and often indicative of someone more thoughtful than those who reject the discussion wholesale.
Otherwise I agree with you.
Astronomy is founded on astrology. Astronomers are very good at forecasting but astrologers aren’t.
WillisStauss & Howe?" In my mind, the country was doing pretty well then. I picked it up in the mid-'00s, having (yes!) forgotten I'd ever read it before - for a while - and I thought then "Holey smokes, these guys were onto something!" However, this Unravelling turning has been going on for TOO long, not matching the timetable in the books. We haven't seen the Crisis yet.Replies: @Another CanadianNeil Howe claims the Crisis began in 2008 with the Great Financial Meltdown.
No, the Civil War saeculum had an Unraveling (1844-1860) but its Crisis (1860-1865) was precipitated too early and resolved too quickly and destructively. So no Hero generation emerged.
Sometimes I think 9/11 may have done that to the Millennials. In 2000 Strauss & Howe published “Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation.” That didn’t exactly happen. I think the Millennials are a Artist generation and Gen Z are the new Prophets. Gen Z has a Boomerish moralizing attitude, only with different morals.
BTW, S&H coined the term Millennials, and in their first book stated that 2020 would be a fateful year. Say what you want, but why Neil Howe isn’t more famous, I don’t know.
I imagine it wasn't that clear to S&H really, but when they were laying out the whole 500 year timeline, they must have figured the cycles wouldn't match events well, without pulling out some time from the mid-1800s.
Yeah, that prediction of 2020 may be somewhat lucky but still. It would be silly to claim an acute event like 9/11, but 2020 involved a lot of longer-term stupid stuff happening, that I suppose wouldn't have been let to happen some years earlier, no matter what the actual events were. In fact, I remember them stating something like that.
I guess I'll take out one of these books again. It's fun.
Here's the big question, NJTC: Did Strauss & Howe predict Peak Stupidity? I did, and I can't even get a consulting job out of it, dammit!Replies: @njguy73
These things are such that they take time to pan out, which means they really can’t be understood at or close to the time that they’re happening.
The gray area boundaries between generations I think are more interesting than the on-center generation generalities. For instance, if you were born in 1950, you are definitely Boomer, 1970 X, 1987 Millennial, 2001 Z. But what do we do with, e.g. 1963, 1979, 1994?
Me, 1977. And as time goes on, it’s getting more and more clear that people born in the second half of the 1970s show a split personality between X and Millennial, so much so that they mash up the terms and call us “Xennials.”
I should also note that here in Germany, there are properly understood Baby Boomers. It’s just that the actual birth boom didn’t start until 1949. So the year range is shifted later.
Did Taki’s pull the column? It isn’t there when I click on the link or go to their website directly.
Boomers are different from their parents’ generation because they were raised in the suburbs with television. Their parents grew up in small towns, on farms or in factory towns where people lived within walking distance to the mill or mine.
Television and the suburbs homogenised politics and culture. Both became something you watched on TV far more than something in which you took part. As the TV era rolled on, political strategists were far more worried about winning over the media than winning over the public. The low cult of the Narrative came to dominate. Those who pleased and appeased the Narrative enjoyed good fortune and those who did not deserved the curses heaped upon them. It was in the era of the Boomers when we went from having state-run media to having media-run states.
Now we’re in the era of social media, rather than television. That looks like it might create as big a generation gap as the one between Boomers and their elders.
OT:
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now
Seymour Hersh
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
I always thought the generations were 15 years each, except for boomers who get 20 because they’re greedy.
Boomers—1946-1965
Gen X—1966-1980
Millennial—1981-1995
Gen Z—1996-2010
Alpha / Whatever the new one is—2011-present
Didn’t know about any of this 19 years vs 16 years stuff.
It’s all arbitrary of course, but at work I’ve noticed differences between bosses who are boomers vs Gen X (the latter being less dramatic and having more of a “let’s get in there, get it done, and get out” mentality, which I prefer). And between peers / juniors who are millennial vs Gen Z (the latter being more cynical, absent, and frankly difficult to work with because they don’t think any of it matters).
Generational Identity, like Racial Identity, is real, even if the boundaries are blurry. There are deserts and shortgrass prairies, but good luck trying to find the precise spot of land where it transitions.
John Glubb in his masterful ‘Fate of Empires’ used a common generational metric of 25 years to determine that the average lifespan of empires was 250 years, or ten generations. Each generation in the life cycle of an empire has unique characteristics, which Glubb broadly describes in terms such as “optimistic”, “improvisational”, “hardy”, “materialistic”, “greedy”, “intellectualizing”, “decadent”, etc.
FYI, the Gay American Empire is on the doorstep of collapse.
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
2. End of last Ice Age to about 5000 BC. Regeneration of forest to about 80% cover.
3. 5000-4000 BC. Little forest clearance.
4. 4000 BC. Start of cereal and pasture farming. A burst of deforestation for about 150 years followed by a similar period of regrowth.
5. 4000-500 BC. Gradual clearance of all woodland from hills.
6. 500 BC to 800 AD. Expansion of farming. Clearance of much of lowlands.
7. 800-1650 AD. Clearance of most of remaining woodland.It is fair to add that the article also blames the expansion of the British Empire for the "export of large quantities of Irish timber for house construction and shipbuilding". That seems unlikely. Nearly all British possessions had their own timber in plenty.But it seems from the above that a very large amount, perhaps most, of Irish deforestation occurred well before the earliest English incursions.Replies: @Corn, @Alden
I don’t know if it’s true or merely Irish sour grapes, but I was once acquainted with an Irishwoman who told me on a couple different occasions “the English took all our timber”.
To borrow from school-testing argot, they are not in “aptitude”, but they certainly are in “achievement”. Blacks are better-placed– ghettoes are near workplaces, but there’s nothing on the rez– so there is a kernel of truth in the “magic dirt” analysis.
Are dirt-poor white areas like southern West Virginia becoming reservations of sorts? Sad.
The gray area boundaries between generations I think are more interesting than the on-center generation generalities. For instance, if you were born in 1950, you are definitely Boomer, 1970 X, 1987 Millennial, 2001 Z. But what do we do with, e.g. 1963, 1979, 1994?
Me, 1977. And as time goes on, it's getting more and more clear that people born in the second half of the 1970s show a split personality between X and Millennial, so much so that they mash up the terms and call us "Xennials."
I should also note that here in Germany, there are properly understood Baby Boomers. It's just that the actual birth boom didn't start until 1949. So the year range is shifted later.Replies: @prosa123, @Reg Cæsar, @Feryl
Interesting to note that three former presidents, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, were all born in the generational transition year of 1946.
That's easy to explain: V-J Day was September 2, 1945. Nine months later was June 2, 1946.Replies: @Muggles
The gray area boundaries between generations I think are more interesting than the on-center generation generalities. For instance, if you were born in 1950, you are definitely Boomer, 1970 X, 1987 Millennial, 2001 Z. But what do we do with, e.g. 1963, 1979, 1994?
Me, 1977. And as time goes on, it's getting more and more clear that people born in the second half of the 1970s show a split personality between X and Millennial, so much so that they mash up the terms and call us "Xennials."
I should also note that here in Germany, there are properly understood Baby Boomers. It's just that the actual birth boom didn't start until 1949. So the year range is shifted later.Replies: @prosa123, @Reg Cæsar, @Feryl
As with race in Latin America, it’s a “continuum”.
2. End of last Ice Age to about 5000 BC. Regeneration of forest to about 80% cover.
3. 5000-4000 BC. Little forest clearance.
4. 4000 BC. Start of cereal and pasture farming. A burst of deforestation for about 150 years followed by a similar period of regrowth.
5. 4000-500 BC. Gradual clearance of all woodland from hills.
6. 500 BC to 800 AD. Expansion of farming. Clearance of much of lowlands.
7. 800-1650 AD. Clearance of most of remaining woodland.It is fair to add that the article also blames the expansion of the British Empire for the "export of large quantities of Irish timber for house construction and shipbuilding". That seems unlikely. Nearly all British possessions had their own timber in plenty.But it seems from the above that a very large amount, perhaps most, of Irish deforestation occurred well before the earliest English incursions.Replies: @Corn, @Alden
RG Camera is correct and your superficial google not really research is wrong. During the 17th and 18th centuries the English de forested their colony Ireland. The reason was simple.
England was a marine empire. The ever growing navy and merchant marine needed tall old growth oak trees to use as ships masts. Millions of them from the mid 1500s to the 1890s.
There were plenty of oak old growth forests in England. But the by then the only remaining forests were royal property and forest preserves, equivalent to national parks. Scotland was never heavily forested. But Ireland was.
Yes, the people of Ireland cut down the forests for firewood buildings furniture boats wagons carts and many other things for centuries. But it was the English need for tall old growth oak ships masts that accelerated the de forestation of Ireland. In fact, in the days of wooden ships the favored wood was first oak then elm . Elm is the most waterproof wood.
This information can be found in the libraries of the great universities.
One reason for the wealth of the New England mid Atlantic American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries was forestry and lumber exported to England for ship building, Especially the forests of very tall, straight old oak used in ships masts.
While I'm not well versed on timber usage in Ireland, it must be remembered that until more recent times, all heating and furnaces were fueled by wood from forests.
I am not sure when the Irish had to resort to peat bogs absent large coal deposits.
I recall reading that the development of British coal mining was a result of deforestation of England close to London. Longer and longer pre-rail hauling of wood made using coal a cheaper fuel source. Even though mining and hauling was expensive. Coal is more energy dense than wood.
This completely changed urban London (and elsewhere) where multiple stove/chimney housing became the norm and can still be seen in older housing apartments. Wood burning fireplaces were much larger and less heat efficient.
Forests returned in England as coal replaced wood. I guess the Irish lacked large coal deposits.
Similarly, in a few old western mining towns (Butte MT) the nearby hills and mountains are mostly bare of trees, which were used in mines and for fuel during the heyday.
Modern timber is mainly used for paper pulp and home construction. As you note, timber was essential for sailing ships and was largely more expensive than brick or stone for housing construction for many years.Replies: @Anonymous
-Discard
A young man is more valuable than an old woman, EEBE
But what if she is a ‘Wise Latina’ ?
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now
Seymour Hersh
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-streamReplies: @Cagey Beast
I like the quote at the end of that piece: “the only flaw was the decision to do it”. It reminds me of what Jacques Soustelle said about the A-bomb: “because it was possible it was necessary”. Jacques Ellul said that was “really a master phrase for all technical evolution”.
Blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines was technically and politically possible and so it was done. It was politically possible because Washington knew Berlin would take any abuse it dished out and come back for more. “F**k the EU” hasn’t let Nuland down so far
I can’t read the article because it’s disappeared from Taki, but all I’ll add is that I see the generations as marketing categories more than something intrinsic or real. When you look at breakdowns of each generation, it typically defines each based on what products they consumed. This is especially true for millennials and zoomers, who are designated more based on what TV shows and video games were out in their youth.
With boomers, there is the demographic factor with the actual boom, but even there the whole “youth culture” was a corporate product, where the youth made sure to buy the right clothing or listen to the right music because for some reason they had to define themselves separately from their parents. Boomers are probably the first generation to spend their entire lives under intense social engineering.
Your story isn’t on Takimag.
Nostalgia exerts quite a pull. Any marketers able to tap into that feeling can make money from whichever generation is in that coveted high-spending age range.
But women are more reliable consumers if men so if they just flatter the many fat-ass ones it is probably easier than using certain music or movies references to book an age group.
The internet siloes people so the new generations don’t share as much common pop culture. But Americans nearly all share an expanding waistline. Tell them they are so hot and … Ca-Ching!
“The Boomers” aren’t even a single coherent generation in terms of the more subjective psycho-sociological stuff everyone drones on about. The early Boomers–who as a leading edge and came of age into an expanding 60s economy, like a ripe orchard and plucked up opportunities and bagged comfy sinecures–is just a different beast from the larger “late boomer” cohorts who came of age into the 70s recession and stagflation, with the lead boomers already in place.
About the only “objective” difference with “the Boomers” is that they are about the whitest generation born in American history. (The prior-20-30s born are perhaps slightly whiter.) Pretty much “peak white”. Every following generation has been notably less white and dumber.
England was a marine empire. The ever growing navy and merchant marine needed tall old growth oak trees to use as ships masts. Millions of them from the mid 1500s to the 1890s.
There were plenty of oak old growth forests in England. But the by then the only remaining forests were royal property and forest preserves, equivalent to national parks. Scotland was never heavily forested. But Ireland was.
Yes, the people of Ireland cut down the forests for firewood buildings furniture boats wagons carts and many other things for centuries. But it was the English need for tall old growth oak ships masts that accelerated the de forestation of Ireland. In fact, in the days of wooden ships the favored wood was first oak then elm . Elm is the most waterproof wood.
This information can be found in the libraries of the great universities.
One reason for the wealth of the New England mid Atlantic American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries was forestry and lumber exported to England for ship building, Especially the forests of very tall, straight old oak used in ships masts.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Muggles, @Jamsportle
Hey! Glad to have Alden back. Though I’m getting used to alt-Alden with the Men Of Unz theme, I really like history scholar Alden.
About the only "objective" difference with "the Boomers" is that they are about the whitest generation born in American history. (The prior-20-30s born are perhaps slightly whiter.) Pretty much "peak white". Every following generation has been notably less white and dumber.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Cagey Beast
This explains much of it.
# and % of Foreign-born people in the country. (It doesn’t count illegals from Mexico, but there were only a few places where this was a factor, going back 50 years.)
Then the baby boom fertility burst first and most strongly with whites. (Only in the late 90s did black TFR go below replacement.) And the 1965 immigration reopening started a process that by the late 70s and 80s was introducing--and then chain migrating in--more non-whites. And then Reagan's 1985 amnesty debacle setting off a twenty year Hispanic baby boom.
And within the same season, the summer of 1946. Within 66 days of each other.
That’s easy to explain: V-J Day was September 2, 1945. Nine months later was June 2, 1946.
So Enthusiastic Celebratory Couplings did have measurable consequences.
About the only "objective" difference with "the Boomers" is that they are about the whitest generation born in American history. (The prior-20-30s born are perhaps slightly whiter.) Pretty much "peak white". Every following generation has been notably less white and dumber.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Cagey Beast
The Boomers are very different from their parents’ generation but not especially different from the generations that came after. If anything, the worst characteristics of the Boomer generation have been increasingly amplified by the Xers, Millennials and younger. Their ethno-masochism, narrcisism and consumerism spring to mind.
Unfortunately, our rulers are playing a different game on a different field.
Steve always brings a debate podium to a gun fight.
I think an earthshaking event happens in the U.S. every 20 years or so (Covid, 9/11, Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor). Your generation is all the people in the same age cohort as you when the event happened. Their experience of the event was likely similar to yours. For example, the experience of Pearl Harbor was likely significantly different for young children, draft-age men, and men too old to be drafted. That’s because each group is part of a different generation.
---------
OT -- Railroad workers had a good deal with days off.
A Canadian company came up with pseudo-Japanese just in time garbage and America adopted it.
This meant that, at the height of the Covid lockdowns, rail workers couldn't call in sick.
Rail companies also were making trains as long as possible, which meant it took forever to discover problems.
Rail workers struck over this.
In the tradition of Harry Truman, a Democrat president forced the strike to end, without resolving any of their concerns.
As a result, a train containing vinyl chloride derailed and caused an environmental catastrophe near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border.
Republicans: Democrats are the real racists!
-----------
Hugh Hewitt had a good Stevism this morning: the rescue of the Turkish/Syrian earthquake victims proves gender nonsense isn't real, in a disaster you take care of women and children first, all that gender stuff goes out the widow.Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @AnotherDad
Now I’m starting to wonder if this stupid “ok boomer” stuff, is in fact a very clever establishment counter intelligence op against “noticing”.
Basically, designed to misdirect, intelligent and annoyed, but gullible, young white men from the fairly obvious destruction wrought by the rise of the Jews pushing minoritarianism and delegitimization of the American nation … and instead get them droning on pointlessly about non-existent generational contention and attacking their parents, rather than focusing on the bonds and shared interests ethnic kinship (“ourselves and our posterity”).
t. millennial
Sorry to post totally off topic here.
But Seymour Hersh has a very good piece on how the US Navy sabotaged the Nord Stream II pipelines.
He has a good reputation for DC/Pentagon reporting, very connected.
A topic for a separate iSteve essay here.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
The European immigration of the 19th and early 20th centuries boosted the white share of the American population, ergo reducing the black share. (Everyone else was insignificant.) So the people born from the mid-20s through mid-60s were being born from “peak white” population and are the “peak white” birth cohorts.
Then the baby boom fertility burst first and most strongly with whites. (Only in the late 90s did black TFR go below replacement.) And the 1965 immigration reopening started a process that by the late 70s and 80s was introducing–and then chain migrating in–more non-whites. And then Reagan’s 1985 amnesty debacle setting off a twenty year Hispanic baby boom.
No article on Taki….
https://twitter.com/SchottHappens/status/1623140396800016384
Also, this.
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1623139868153880577
Overall, an entertaining evening.Replies: @AnotherDad, @Reg Cæsar
Peachy. Enough with this nonsense that a traitor is merits “respect for the office”.
But let’s see some action. Impeach Biden for border treason.
Yeah, the Senate will vote it down. So what. The point is he is treasonously not just neglecting his core duty to prevent invasion, but helping the invaders out. And that point needs to be hammered home.
Do they like astrology at Taki’s? This doesn’t seem to be there anymore.
Taki’s was down for a while around 7am CT and when it came back up this article link was dead, has been dead ever since.
As the Boomers themselves used to say, oldsters are just so “square.”
In fact, they would say this while rolling their eyes and drawing a quadrilateral in the air with their fingers. Now they must endure “Hey Boomer!” gibes from the new generations of whippersnappers. Cruel circle of time.
https://slate.com/culture/2012/02/the-pulp-fiction-square-a-brief-video-history.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20130111071034/http://bestnewbands.com/philosophy/item/246-%E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t-be-a-square%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-a-brief-video-history
https://ken-jennings.com/blog/archives/3599
https://ken-jennings.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/alice_square.jpg
After the money and sustenance ones, things like Social Security and Medicare, based on the conceit you can trust the government to keep things economically sane (Social Security passed in an administration that was starving a quarter of its population by its own estimates, later in it confirmed by the draft), is there any more effective way to sunder the bonds between generations? I’m early Gen X of Silent Generation parents and just look in horror at the genocidal hatred of cultural Boomers.
Steve Sailer:
“The older Boomers that were reaching adult age in the late 60’s voted Democrat to avoid the draft, while tghe younger Boomers voted for Reagan.”
I disagree with you completely. Political orientation is stable throughout life, and correlates strongly with geography and ethnic background, with northern Americans and especially northeastern white Americans of a more Germanic/Scandinavian backgound voting Democrat/liberal, and southern, south-central and lower midwestern white Americans of a more Scots-Irish/Celtic/Anglo-Saxon/eastern European voting more Republican/conservative.
But what do you know about politcal orientation of people? Youa re the guy that said that the doctor cyclist that got killed was “most Republican-looking ever”. Imagine saying that a *cyclist* ,and a cyclist that also happens to live in California, is likely to be a Republican voter. Have you ever met an actual cyclist in your life? Now, I am not a cylist, being an active runner, but I know many and they are most liberal/Democrat-voting group of people I can think of. Cyclising is probably the most liberal sport ever. Well, maybe cricket or polo. But cycling must be up there as one of the most Democrat/liberal sports pursuit ever.
Regarding generations, I agree with you. In fact, I pointed out that Gen-X and Gen-Z are fabrications.
What is known as Gen-X and Gen-Z are fabrications. The Gen-Xers are simply the younger Boomers, those who were born either at the tail end of the Baby Boom in the late sixties to the mid seventies. “:Gen-Z”, on the other hand, are simply the younger Millenials, those born at the tail end.
A much better solution to understanding generations than your 10 year rules, would be to simply understand this in terms of actual biological generations. So let me simplify this to you. Here is the cardinal rule:
Boomers are the children of the men that fought in WW2, Millenials are their grandchildren and Gen-Alpha are their great-grandchildren.
There has not been 5 generations born since the battle of Iwo Jima happened: there simply wasn’t enough time. But 3 generations is accurate. So “GenX” and “Gen-Z” are fabrications. Gen-Xers have in common with Boomers that most of them have Greatest Generation parents. “Gen-Xers are those Boomers that were the very last children had by WW2 men, or they were the kids of men who only decided to have kids when they were over the age of 50.
Likewise, “Millenials” and “Gen-Z” are exactly the same generation. They are the same generation because they both have Boomer parents. In other words, same *biological* generation. The difference is that Millenials are the first kids that the Boomers, and started to be born in the late seventies to mid eighties. Conversely, “Gen-Z” are either the little brothers and sisters of Millenials, or the Millenial kids born to Boomer parents that were over age 50.
The first *true*(biological) generation after Millenials is Generation-Alpha. Gen-Alpha are the children of Millenials, the grandchildren of Boomers and the great-grandchildren of the men that fought in WW2. Of course, Gen-Alpha are very, very young, mostly entering puberty to their mid teens. But they are the first true generation after Millenials.
So 3 generations instead of 5: Boomers, Millenials and Alphas. Here are roughly the dates of the generations. It is imprecise because generations are imprecise. Some closer to 20 years in separation, and others closer to 30. But roughly 20-30.
Boomers –> born 1946-1976
Millenials –> born 1977-2006
Alphas –> born 2007+
This is much better than your 10 year gap because it reflects actual generations
Gen-Z actually loves Millenials because they are their cool older brothers and sisters and they emulate them. Millenials are far more likely to be the older brothers and sisters of Gen-Z than their parents. As Duplee, one of the most famous Zoomers said:
“We wil always have the back of Millenials because they are our older bothers, and they were much more parents to us than our loser Boomer parents ever were.”
Gen-Z, the younger cohort of Millenials, have a very special relationship with their same generation elders, because they were raised by them, since Boomers are the most self-centered and spoiled generation ever and gavenothing to their kids, either in terms of values, or attention, or even economic opportunity.
Now that the older cohort of Millenials are in their late twenties to early forties and facing the brutal economic hardships of the 21rst century, the younger same-generation Zoomera are cheering them on because most are still in college or in their very last years of high school, and they fear what is coming.
Boomers grew up in the richest society on Earth, and had the easiest life and the best opportunities. They squandered the wealth, bankrupted America and left nothing to their children and grandchildren.
England was a marine empire. The ever growing navy and merchant marine needed tall old growth oak trees to use as ships masts. Millions of them from the mid 1500s to the 1890s.
There were plenty of oak old growth forests in England. But the by then the only remaining forests were royal property and forest preserves, equivalent to national parks. Scotland was never heavily forested. But Ireland was.
Yes, the people of Ireland cut down the forests for firewood buildings furniture boats wagons carts and many other things for centuries. But it was the English need for tall old growth oak ships masts that accelerated the de forestation of Ireland. In fact, in the days of wooden ships the favored wood was first oak then elm . Elm is the most waterproof wood.
This information can be found in the libraries of the great universities.
One reason for the wealth of the New England mid Atlantic American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries was forestry and lumber exported to England for ship building, Especially the forests of very tall, straight old oak used in ships masts.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Muggles, @Jamsportle
Yes, also welcome back to Alden.
While I’m not well versed on timber usage in Ireland, it must be remembered that until more recent times, all heating and furnaces were fueled by wood from forests.
I am not sure when the Irish had to resort to peat bogs absent large coal deposits.
I recall reading that the development of British coal mining was a result of deforestation of England close to London. Longer and longer pre-rail hauling of wood made using coal a cheaper fuel source. Even though mining and hauling was expensive. Coal is more energy dense than wood.
This completely changed urban London (and elsewhere) where multiple stove/chimney housing became the norm and can still be seen in older housing apartments. Wood burning fireplaces were much larger and less heat efficient.
Forests returned in England as coal replaced wood. I guess the Irish lacked large coal deposits.
Similarly, in a few old western mining towns (Butte MT) the nearby hills and mountains are mostly bare of trees, which were used in mines and for fuel during the heyday.
Modern timber is mainly used for paper pulp and home construction. As you note, timber was essential for sailing ships and was largely more expensive than brick or stone for housing construction for many years.
Apparently, the untold millions of railroad ties which literally supported British transportation in the 19th and 20th centuries were of best quality oak, and mostly imported from Poland and central Europe.Replies: @Thelma Ringbaum
That's easy to explain: V-J Day was September 2, 1945. Nine months later was June 2, 1946.Replies: @Muggles
And reliable female contraceptives weren’t available until the late 50s.
So Enthusiastic Celebratory Couplings did have measurable consequences.
https://twitter.com/SchottHappens/status/1623140396800016384
Also, this.
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1623139868153880577
Overall, an entertaining evening.Replies: @AnotherDad, @Reg Cæsar
What is wrong with Utah?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Garment.jpg
How does the Romney vote break down by sex? Not just in general elections in Utah and Massachusetts, where partisanism is a factor, but in primaries in those states, and in presidential primaries in other states?
Utah Territory was the first jurisdiction in the world to hold an election with universal female suffrage. Even before Wyoming.Replies: @Inquiring Mind
Wearing the right kind of drawers is enough to fit a man to represent you in the US Senate?
How does the Romney vote break down by sex? Not just in general elections in Utah and Massachusetts, where partisanism is a factor, but in primaries in those states, and in presidential primaries in other states?
Utah Territory was the first jurisdiction in the world to hold an election with universal female suffrage. Even before Wyoming.
I am thinking his old-age flab fits better into the one on the right.
This sort of generational silliness has been going on for a while. Fluff that people who don’t want to look for real interesting trends gravitate to.
I remember 20+ years ago a McKinsey-ite being surprised that Boomer tastes (literally) as they aged would be more like previous generations than an issue of Boomers bringing something different to the food market. I guess he had never heard of “the more things change, the more they stay the same” or “every new generation thinks it invented sex”.
But then that’s one of my critiques of consulting…no historical perspective, no learning from “rhymes” of history. Just the flash in the pan of “new business models”. Then again, they are selling to corporate execs even stupider than them.
This is one of my favorite anti business books:
[Not perfect, but the parts where they slam business books in general and discuss the mendacity of executives are better…parts where they actually want to be a business book are not as good.]
Generation X will be the last to remember (I hope) a confidently White and Anglo America. And they’ll remember how much better it was. Obvious exceptions for places like Miami and Idaho, but even people there can’t insulate themselves from the now unapologetically Globohomo mass media.
It’s a little bit astrology but also a little bit shared experiences that distinguish us from others of different age groups (eg the experience of navigating an adult social world without cell phones or social media). Fuzzy lines are still lines.
-A misanthropic and proudly cynical Gen-Xer
Sometimes I think 9/11 may have done that to the Millennials. In 2000 Strauss & Howe published "Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation." That didn't exactly happen. I think the Millennials are a Artist generation and Gen Z are the new Prophets. Gen Z has a Boomerish moralizing attitude, only with different morals.
BTW, S&H coined the term Millennials, and in their first book stated that 2020 would be a fateful year. Say what you want, but why Neil Howe isn't more famous, I don't know.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
You may know better, especially if you have one of the books with you right now as you commute back to New Jersey. ;-} I returned Generations to the library 3 years ago or more. I’m going by the 2nd link of mine on the lack of an Unraveling. She could be wrong, but also the wiki page, while not quite having that info., has the “Progressive” generation being both Hero and Artist. So, I don’t know…
I imagine it wasn’t that clear to S&H really, but when they were laying out the whole 500 year timeline, they must have figured the cycles wouldn’t match events well, without pulling out some time from the mid-1800s.
Yeah, that prediction of 2020 may be somewhat lucky but still. It would be silly to claim an acute event like 9/11, but 2020 involved a lot of longer-term stupid stuff happening, that I suppose wouldn’t have been let to happen some years earlier, no matter what the actual events were. In fact, I remember them stating something like that.
I guess I’ll take out one of these books again. It’s fun.
Here’s the big question, NJTC: Did Strauss & Howe predict Peak Stupidity? I did, and I can’t even get a consulting job out of it, dammit!
OT — The FBI has signaled that they will now persecute traditional Catholics.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi-internal-memo-warns-against-radical-traditionalist-catholic-ideology/
Steve, you say there was no boom in UK after 1947. Did you factor in massive postwar migration to Australia? That’s why for example, the Bee Gees were born in UK but grew up in Australia, along with half a million others.
It is even said that ‘The volume of baby boom was the largest in the world in New Zealand and second-largest in Australia’.
Probably these post ww2 migration countries should all be grouped together, both source and destination, to see the real effect.
And since there was clearly a well-defined 1960s youth market in Britain which influenced all others (The Beatles etc), along with an aging population bubble now in that same group, this suggests something like immigration has hidden the effect.
I always thought that the creation of all of these generation labels was just a way for the media to keep people fighting each other.
Generation length is tied to the stages of human life, not to calendar years. Once you have a dominant or crisis event, like the American Revolution, everything else flows from there, because of the way the human lifespan is divided into childhood, young adulthood, prime adulthood, and old age. 1780 looked about the same to a 20-year-old as it did to a 35-year-old, who were still making their way in the world and had time to adapt to the changes. But it looked different to a 45-65 year-old whose established position was upended by political events, and different yet to a 65-85 year-old who was retired from public life.
When a crisis occurs, it sort of crystallizes the groups falling into those four phases into generations. Those generations then live out their lives in reaction to that crisis, setting in place the conditions that shape the future generations, including sowing the seeds of the next crisis which can be expected about one human lifespan after the previous one.
What interests me about Strauss and Howe are their predictions, many but not all of which have come to pass. If you think all young people are like a 20-year-old Gen Xer in 1990, you might expect the 20yo of 2010 to be like them. S&H, back in the 90s, said guess again, the 20yo in 2010 would be shaped by very different forces than the 20 yo of 1990 – forces that would create a conformist and rule-bound generation in contrast to the lone-wolf Gen Xer. Who was right? (Some insist on interpreting Millenials as extreme individualists, but they are absolutely monolithic in their devotion to superficial differences as a cover for rigid conformity.)
Because S&H deal in numbers and predictions, some people interpret it as science and build up unrealistic expectations about what it can predict, expectations that no sociological theory can live up to. But it’s demographics, not science, so the fair comparison is to compare its predictions to those of competing sociological theories. And that is where S&H starts to look pretty darn good.
S&H do tend to bury the reader in an avalanche of facts which may or may not be cherry-picked to support their thesis. But again, look at the predictions. 20 years ago, everyone who mattered was in favor of immigration and foreign entanglements. Not so much any more. This was predicted by S&H as part of general turning inward as we plow through our crisis.
S&H make it clear that there is no guarantee of a triumph over crisis. Indeed they spoke of the 2020-era crisis as a time of maximum danger.
Thanks. It’s back up.
Some technical problem.
"The older Boomers that were reaching adult age in the late 60's voted Democrat to avoid the draft, while tghe younger Boomers voted for Reagan."
I disagree with you completely. Political orientation is stable throughout life, and correlates strongly with geography and ethnic background, with northern Americans and especially northeastern white Americans of a more Germanic/Scandinavian backgound voting Democrat/liberal, and southern, south-central and lower midwestern white Americans of a more Scots-Irish/Celtic/Anglo-Saxon/eastern European voting more Republican/conservative.
But what do you know about politcal orientation of people? Youa re the guy that said that the doctor cyclist that got killed was "most Republican-looking ever". Imagine saying that a *cyclist* ,and a cyclist that also happens to live in California, is likely to be a Republican voter. Have you ever met an actual cyclist in your life? Now, I am not a cylist, being an active runner, but I know many and they are most liberal/Democrat-voting group of people I can think of. Cyclising is probably the most liberal sport ever. Well, maybe cricket or polo. But cycling must be up there as one of the most Democrat/liberal sports pursuit ever.
Regarding generations, I agree with you. In fact, I pointed out that Gen-X and Gen-Z are fabrications.
What is known as Gen-X and Gen-Z are fabrications. The Gen-Xers are simply the younger Boomers, those who were born either at the tail end of the Baby Boom in the late sixties to the mid seventies. ":Gen-Z", on the other hand, are simply the younger Millenials, those born at the tail end.
A much better solution to understanding generations than your 10 year rules, would be to simply understand this in terms of actual biological generations. So let me simplify this to you. Here is the cardinal rule:
Boomers are the children of the men that fought in WW2, Millenials are their grandchildren and Gen-Alpha are their great-grandchildren.
There has not been 5 generations born since the battle of Iwo Jima happened: there simply wasn't enough time. But 3 generations is accurate. So "GenX" and "Gen-Z" are fabrications. Gen-Xers have in common with Boomers that most of them have Greatest Generation parents. "Gen-Xers are those Boomers that were the very last children had by WW2 men, or they were the kids of men who only decided to have kids when they were over the age of 50.
Likewise, "Millenials" and "Gen-Z" are exactly the same generation. They are the same generation because they both have Boomer parents. In other words, same *biological* generation. The difference is that Millenials are the first kids that the Boomers, and started to be born in the late seventies to mid eighties. Conversely, "Gen-Z" are either the little brothers and sisters of Millenials, or the Millenial kids born to Boomer parents that were over age 50.
The first *true*(biological) generation after Millenials is Generation-Alpha. Gen-Alpha are the children of Millenials, the grandchildren of Boomers and the great-grandchildren of the men that fought in WW2. Of course, Gen-Alpha are very, very young, mostly entering puberty to their mid teens. But they are the first true generation after Millenials.
So 3 generations instead of 5: Boomers, Millenials and Alphas. Here are roughly the dates of the generations. It is imprecise because generations are imprecise. Some closer to 20 years in separation, and others closer to 30. But roughly 20-30.
Boomers --> born 1946-1976
Millenials --> born 1977-2006
Alphas --> born 2007+
This is much better than your 10 year gap because it reflects actual generations
Gen-Z actually loves Millenials because they are their cool older brothers and sisters and they emulate them. Millenials are far more likely to be the older brothers and sisters of Gen-Z than their parents. As Duplee, one of the most famous Zoomers said:
"We wil always have the back of Millenials because they are our older bothers, and they were much more parents to us than our loser Boomer parents ever were."
Gen-Z, the younger cohort of Millenials, have a very special relationship with their same generation elders, because they were raised by them, since Boomers are the most self-centered and spoiled generation ever and gavenothing to their kids, either in terms of values, or attention, or even economic opportunity.
Now that the older cohort of Millenials are in their late twenties to early forties and facing the brutal economic hardships of the 21rst century, the younger same-generation Zoomera are cheering them on because most are still in college or in their very last years of high school, and they fear what is coming.
Boomers grew up in the richest society on Earth, and had the easiest life and the best opportunities. They squandered the wealth, bankrupted America and left nothing to their children and grandchildren.
https://youtu.be/fe-zxYuu8ewReplies: @Old Prude
There is much to what you say. Boomers were the first generation of humans ever born without fear of privation. Nothing like them had ever existed before. Like the atomic bomb, they were a unique divergence in human history. Millenials, Gen- X and Zoomers live in the new reality they created, for better or worse.
👌, boomer
It is even said that 'The volume of baby boom was the largest in the world in New Zealand and second-largest in Australia'.
Probably these post ww2 migration countries should all be grouped together, both source and destination, to see the real effect.
And since there was clearly a well-defined 1960s youth market in Britain which influenced all others (The Beatles etc), along with an aging population bubble now in that same group, this suggests something like immigration has hidden the effect.Replies: @Ancient Briton
Micro-quibble: the Bee Gees were born on the Isle of Man, a Crown Dependency not part of the United Kingdom.
The historical breeding rate remained constant through the 20th century. What really happened in 1946 was the pent-up frustration of the Depression-War period allowed the "put-off" people who were on average older than most first-time parents to breed.
Had the thirties and early forties been "normal" the rates would have been above normal anyway because population grew in the 1920s. The number of boomer kids who had Grandpa-age-daddies was enormous and embarrassed the shit out of some of us. ("Nice of your grandpa to come" "Uh, that was daddy"). And nobody ever said, Oh, sorry about that.
The theories on all this are mostly wrong. Victor Hugo's world, post Waterloo, was a France "filled with old men and orphans" but Victor still buried his son and most of the youngsters of his later era. He died at 86, phenomenal when you consider that as late as the Commune of the 1870s he had to hide in basements and live off pidgins he caught and cooked himself.
Did France learn its lesson from Hugo's century? Hardly. In World War I France lost more soldiers in the trenches than America lost in ALL her wars put together. Put simpler, a century after the Retreat from Moscow and Waterloo, the French managed to break the record for war dead again. Generations didn't help them at all. Or being French makes it irrelevant.Replies: @Ryan Andrews
No, the parents of the Boomers on average had their first kid in their early 20s, which was the youngest since colonial times.
I agree with the thrust of Steve’s argument that generations are mostly fake, but my solution is to not bother with delineating generations at all, unless they arise organically. Boomers and the depression/GI generation are real things, but Silent, gen-x, Millennials, Zoomers, these don’t exist.
And yes, 1964 is way too late to still be calling someone a boomer. If you’re not old enough to remember the JFK assassination or the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show, you’re not a boomer. Going off the 1964 endpoint, would make Douglas Coupland a boomer.
The "tyranny of the average" is the problem with the above fact. From mid-Ike till Nixon the first-time age for marriage really did drop like a stone. The remembrance of all the Elder Mommy-Daddy was almost certainly NOT average but... you saw it everywhere.
The science-fiction guy Samuel R. Delaney mentioned that he helped bring the age of matrimony in New York to "an all-time-low" of 19 in the middle of the year 1961. So if Sam was born in 1940-41, he was alive in the near-perfect time. They were right to marry and breed in those years because Eden has a way of expelling people.
In fact, they would say this while rolling their eyes and drawing a quadrilateral in the air with their fingers. Now they must endure "Hey Boomer!" gibes from the new generations of whippersnappers. Cruel circle of time.Replies: @MEH 0910
Some dead links in the piece:
https://slate.com/culture/2012/02/the-pulp-fiction-square-a-brief-video-history.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20130111071034/http://bestnewbands.com/philosophy/item/246-%E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t-be-a-square%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-a-brief-video-history
https://ken-jennings.com/blog/archives/3599
Look at the musicians who performed at Woodstock. The great majority of them were born in the 1940-45 range. Is it really more meaningful to consider them the tail end of the Silents rather than the leading edge of the Boomers?
It’s more meaningful to look at generations in terms of cultural impact rather than birth numbers. Hence Strauss and Howe were on the right track but I don’t think went far enough.
Ripple’s simplified generations, with the caveat that the boundaries are soft and malleable:
Born in:
1900’s-10’s: Greatest
1920’s-30’s: Silent
1940’s-50’s: Boomers
1960’s-70’s: Gen X
1980’s-90’s: Millennials
2000’s-10’s: Gen Z
2020’s-30’s: ??
I think this is as meaningful as any other classification bandied about.
If Strauss and Howe’s theory is correct, the babies being born now will be the leading edge of the next Prophet generation and will have a similar mindset as the Boomers. We’ll see…
1906-1925: Greatest
1926-1940: American century gen
1941-1955: Boomers
1956-1965: Yuppies
1966-1975: Postmodern gen
1976-1994: Gen X
1995-?: TransGen
England was a marine empire. The ever growing navy and merchant marine needed tall old growth oak trees to use as ships masts. Millions of them from the mid 1500s to the 1890s.
There were plenty of oak old growth forests in England. But the by then the only remaining forests were royal property and forest preserves, equivalent to national parks. Scotland was never heavily forested. But Ireland was.
Yes, the people of Ireland cut down the forests for firewood buildings furniture boats wagons carts and many other things for centuries. But it was the English need for tall old growth oak ships masts that accelerated the de forestation of Ireland. In fact, in the days of wooden ships the favored wood was first oak then elm . Elm is the most waterproof wood.
This information can be found in the libraries of the great universities.
One reason for the wealth of the New England mid Atlantic American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries was forestry and lumber exported to England for ship building, Especially the forests of very tall, straight old oak used in ships masts.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Muggles, @Jamsportle
Masts are not made of tall, straight oak. Masts are made of tall, straight conifers. Oak was required particularly for curved ships’ ribs.
-Discard
I just read your Taki piece and see that my simplified generational boundaries that begin with zeros and end in nines and which retain the common generational names are simply your decades paired up. So for example we can talk about early/40’s Boomers and late/50’s Boomers, whose differences are something as a very tail end Boomer according to this model I am very familiar with. Same with early Gen X on the other side.
While I'm not well versed on timber usage in Ireland, it must be remembered that until more recent times, all heating and furnaces were fueled by wood from forests.
I am not sure when the Irish had to resort to peat bogs absent large coal deposits.
I recall reading that the development of British coal mining was a result of deforestation of England close to London. Longer and longer pre-rail hauling of wood made using coal a cheaper fuel source. Even though mining and hauling was expensive. Coal is more energy dense than wood.
This completely changed urban London (and elsewhere) where multiple stove/chimney housing became the norm and can still be seen in older housing apartments. Wood burning fireplaces were much larger and less heat efficient.
Forests returned in England as coal replaced wood. I guess the Irish lacked large coal deposits.
Similarly, in a few old western mining towns (Butte MT) the nearby hills and mountains are mostly bare of trees, which were used in mines and for fuel during the heyday.
Modern timber is mainly used for paper pulp and home construction. As you note, timber was essential for sailing ships and was largely more expensive than brick or stone for housing construction for many years.Replies: @Anonymous
Historically, there was – and actually there still is – a massive trade of importing timber, wood etc from Scandinavia, Russia and the Baltic states into the UK.
Apparently, the untold millions of railroad ties which literally supported British transportation in the 19th and 20th centuries were of best quality oak, and mostly imported from Poland and central Europe.
1920's-30's: Silent
1940's-50's: Boomers
1960's-70's: Gen X
1980's-90's: Millennials
2000's-10's: Gen Z
2020's-30's: ??I think this is as meaningful as any other classification bandied about.If Strauss and Howe's theory is correct, the babies being born now will be the leading edge of the next Prophet generation and will have a similar mindset as the Boomers. We'll see...Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Feryl, @Ryan Andrews
Yes, this is a nice compromise that keeps the popular cohort labels while being much easier to remember and work with.
You’re mostly correct.
The “tyranny of the average” is the problem with the above fact. From mid-Ike till Nixon the first-time age for marriage really did drop like a stone. The remembrance of all the Elder Mommy-Daddy was almost certainly NOT average but… you saw it everywhere.
The science-fiction guy Samuel R. Delaney mentioned that he helped bring the age of matrimony in New York to “an all-time-low” of 19 in the middle of the year 1961. So if Sam was born in 1940-41, he was alive in the near-perfect time. They were right to marry and breed in those years because Eden has a way of expelling people.
1920's-30's: Silent
1940's-50's: Boomers
1960's-70's: Gen X
1980's-90's: Millennials
2000's-10's: Gen Z
2020's-30's: ??I think this is as meaningful as any other classification bandied about.If Strauss and Howe's theory is correct, the babies being born now will be the leading edge of the next Prophet generation and will have a similar mindset as the Boomers. We'll see...Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Feryl, @Ryan Andrews
The cultural icons revered by a generation tend to be born at the tail end of a previous generation. Which for some reason is often overlooked. The culture of the 60’s was dominated by back-end Silents, not Boomers. Back-end Boomers dominated the 80’s, Gen X did not. Celebrities tend to be at their peak of prominence in their late 20’s and 30’s, and the rising generation of youth latch onto them as “theirs”.
With boomers, there is the demographic factor with the actual boom, but even there the whole "youth culture" was a corporate product, where the youth made sure to buy the right clothing or listen to the right music because for some reason they had to define themselves separately from their parents. Boomers are probably the first generation to spend their entire lives under intense social engineering.Replies: @Coemgen
Hm, I noticed back in the 80s that guys who were not that many years younger than me seemed to have a very different way of thinking than guys my age.
One big difference is that the younger cohort seems to be obsessed with video games. Video games appear to be more than just a fad or a pastime for them. The games are major factor in their lives.
The difference with guys ten years younger than this Nintendo Generation, the Game Boy Generation, is even more obvious. A sixteen-year-old member of the Nintendo Generation may not have known how to drive a car, in real life, but he probably knew how to tie his own shoes — something that could not be as confidently assumed for a sixteen-year-old member of the Game Boy Generation.
I know not everyone thinks like me, but I still find it odd sometimes how many adults play video games.Replies: @BB753
The 1946 cohort was the highest scoring and wealthiest of all Boomer cohorts. They came of age before 1968, the year in which our standards and culture started to decay. But that cohort also had a lot more comfort and privilege than previous generations.
The gray area boundaries between generations I think are more interesting than the on-center generation generalities. For instance, if you were born in 1950, you are definitely Boomer, 1970 X, 1987 Millennial, 2001 Z. But what do we do with, e.g. 1963, 1979, 1994?
Me, 1977. And as time goes on, it's getting more and more clear that people born in the second half of the 1970s show a split personality between X and Millennial, so much so that they mash up the terms and call us "Xennials."
I should also note that here in Germany, there are properly understood Baby Boomers. It's just that the actual birth boom didn't start until 1949. So the year range is shifted later.Replies: @prosa123, @Reg Cæsar, @Feryl
As someone born in ’85, I would also say that the collapse in birth rates that occured from 1972-1986 makes those of us born in that time range feel like an endangered species. Throughout my life people overwhelmingly were born before 1972 or after 1986. And stereotypes of X-ers are based mainly on those born from 1966-1971, who numerically comprise most of Gen X. And stereotypes of Millennials are based mainly on those born from 1987-1994, which is a numerically massive generation.
Lol what? Everyone knows that the Irish in question were first conquered by Spaniards. By the certain Miles of Spain. So the English were just another next conqueror to them local peasants.
Apparently, the untold millions of railroad ties which literally supported British transportation in the 19th and 20th centuries were of best quality oak, and mostly imported from Poland and central Europe.Replies: @Thelma Ringbaum
The Ukraine war disrupted trade in Baltic Birch plywood, which was imported untill recently into Canada .
COVID itself wasn’t earth- shaking but the mass formation psychosis around it was.
I haven’t been able to find a source which confirms your claim of a sharp rise in birth rates starting in 1986. Moderate, perhaps. Got any links?
Birth rates were very low in the 70's and most of the 80's. They rebounded somewhat (not that much) by circa 1987. But since Generation Jones was a massive generation, they didn't have to have that many kids in order for their children's generation (Millennials) to be large. And most of their kids were born in the late 80's-mid 90's.Replies: @Feryl
The Boomer is immunized against all dangers: One may call him a grampa, fogey, graybeard, coffin-dodger, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Boomer and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”
Sorry, I had to.
Basically, designed to misdirect, intelligent and annoyed, but gullible, young white men from the fairly obvious destruction wrought by the rise of the Jews pushing minoritarianism and delegitimization of the American nation ... and instead get them droning on pointlessly about non-existent generational contention and attacking their parents, rather than focusing on the bonds and shared interests ethnic kinship ("ourselves and our posterity").Replies: @Pure Coincidence
That is exactly what it is. There are at least ten boomer hate threads posted on 4chan /pol/ every day.
t. millennial
I don’t want to sound like an old fart, but I’m 43. I put my Sega Genesis in the closet when I was 17 and haven’t owned a console since.
I know not everyone thinks like me, but I still find it odd sometimes how many adults play video games.
And the events you mentioned are all in roughly 20 year intervals: 1941, 1963, 2020 but with a gap around 1980. I suppose there one would have to fill in the Iran hostage crisis/Reagan’s election and attempted assassination and I suppose the murder of John Lennon but those wasn’t quite as impactful.
1920's-30's: Silent
1940's-50's: Boomers
1960's-70's: Gen X
1980's-90's: Millennials
2000's-10's: Gen Z
2020's-30's: ??I think this is as meaningful as any other classification bandied about.If Strauss and Howe's theory is correct, the babies being born now will be the leading edge of the next Prophet generation and will have a similar mindset as the Boomers. We'll see...Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Feryl, @Ryan Andrews
1890-1905: Lost
1906-1925: Greatest
1926-1940: American century gen
1941-1955: Boomers
1956-1965: Yuppies
1966-1975: Postmodern gen
1976-1994: Gen X
1995-?: TransGen
That’s because it happened during a Fourth Turning. If it happened in 1975 or 1995, society’s reaction would have been much different. S&H emphasize that generational analysis doesn’t predict events, but society’s reactions to them
I imagine it wasn't that clear to S&H really, but when they were laying out the whole 500 year timeline, they must have figured the cycles wouldn't match events well, without pulling out some time from the mid-1800s.
Yeah, that prediction of 2020 may be somewhat lucky but still. It would be silly to claim an acute event like 9/11, but 2020 involved a lot of longer-term stupid stuff happening, that I suppose wouldn't have been let to happen some years earlier, no matter what the actual events were. In fact, I remember them stating something like that.
I guess I'll take out one of these books again. It's fun.
Here's the big question, NJTC: Did Strauss & Howe predict Peak Stupidity? I did, and I can't even get a consulting job out of it, dammit!Replies: @njguy73
Im not NJ Transit Commuter. That’s someone else.
All this said, I believe it's mostly a bunch of hokum, but nicely thought-out hokum.
A Fourth Turning?
I’m very sorry about that, New Jersey guy. I realized that only later on, but figured this thread was getting old. I’m glad we got to discuss S&H.
Yes, that’s exactly the bit I was referring to.
All this said, I believe it’s mostly a bunch of hokum, but nicely thought-out hokum.
Even though, as I said, there are only 3 generations and not 5(Boomers, Millenials and Alphas), I still think that the labels “Gen-X” and “Gen-Z” are still useful labels in certain situations.
Gen-X had the best sound by far. This video of Björk at her high school in 1982 shows that. Imagine when a high school singer/artist at a talent show displays a singing ability, intonation and stage presence that is 1,000 X greater than that of the majority of adult seasoned professional singers.
The other interesting thing about the video is to see the types 0f Societies that white liberals build when they are left alone. The reason why I say this is because we never see white liberals alone. We always see them inserted in the context of multicultural/multiethnic societies, or in shared communities with white conservatives. Iceland, one of the classic liberal Scandinavian/Germanic countries back in 1982 was probably the closest thing that we have ever seen to “whitetopia”. A Society that is 99% and more-or-less without even ideological conflicts. As you can see from videos showing these Scandinavian societies back in the 1970’s, they were not exactly hyper-chaotic societies. White liberals might pay a lot of lip service to being in favor of sexual promiscuity, drugs, etc, but the *truth* is that they are the most orderly and conscientious group of human beings to ever walk the face of the Earth.
What this tells me is that liberalism is not the problem per se, but that it only works inserted in a very specific ethnic context. Liberalism is a *group evolutionary strategy of northern Germanic/Scandinavian peoples* It works beautifully when there are only people that were genetically selected over tens of thousands of years towards tolerance, egalitarianism, extremely high conscientiousness and fair play. It falls apart completely when there is even a small number of parasitic/lecherous/hostile foreigners that harbor ethnic resentment towards the majority.
The small minority of white conservatives in Scandinavian/northern Germanic societies never created any problems for those societies. Sure, they might resent the tolerance that these societies historically show towards homosexuals and people with alternative lifestyles, but the white conservative minority does not harbor murderous resentment of an ethnic nature towards the white liberal majority. The non-whites, conversely, do harbor murderous ethnic resentment towards white liberals and are completely tearing these societies apart. Because it is so easy to guilt-trip white liberals into making concessions because of their tendency towards egalitarianism and univeralistic morality, the non-whites are raping, murdering and leeching of the wealth of these societies and the white liberals seem psychologically unable to stop it.
The reason why I bring this up over and over again is because people don’t understand how radically important this question is. Steve Sailer focuses a lot on race, but he doesn’t focus on the huge psychological difference between the white liberals and the white conservatives. This is *the* fundamental question that will decide whether the United States of America and the entire West survives in the long term or not. The question is this: can white liberals be shown/convinced that all the non-white minorities that they defend do not have their best interests at heart, and do not reciprocate since they lack the egalitarian/universalistic/conscientious mentality that white liberals have? How to convince white liberals that the reason why they think and feel this way is because their ancestors were genetically selected towards that path for tens of thousands of years, and that non-whites will not and cannot become like them?
The fundamental question for the 21rst century is whether white liberals can pull the breaks on their incredibly self-destructive genetic tendency towarfds egalitarianism and universalism which works beautifuly in and ethnically homogenous whte population, but is completely dysfunctional outside the context of mono-ethnic northern European societies.
Who or what can pull the breaks on white liberals and their self-destructive tendencies, considering how incredibly powerful they are?
I would say that the egalitarian culture and homogeneity of Northern European (and Japan!) guards against the "situational morality" and decadence/corruption common to most of the world outside of Northern Europe and Japan.
I don't think the increasingly diverse populations of Europe and the Anglosphere are going to make it possible for their trad. Culture to survive. Already we see that "tolerant" white liberals want black only spaces on campuses, want to muzzle people who notice unpleasant things about "minority" groups, want to strip white rednecks of their guns, etc. Not to mention that mental health, civic engagement, and social trust levels are lowest in ethnically diverse areas of these countries.
Back when Silents and Early Boomers fought for greater free speech rights and civil rights in the 60's, those generations were remarkably non-diverse and non-white immigration levels were low (as other posters in this thread astutely noted, the high immigration levels of the late 19th century and early 20th century made America whiter). But future generations, who came of age when America was becoming rapidly less white, have had no great causes, instead becoming increasingly cynical. And the South, historically by far the most diverse region, has always been the most reactionary region; it's hard to unite to be in favor of something with the ever present tension caused by a large black population. But so too will most of the rest of America eventually suffer that fate.Replies: @Zero Philosopher, @Zero Philosopher
First, the fundamental question in this century is whether America can withstand the extremism political ideologies who are trying to tear to it apart.
Second, egalitarianism and universalism is not a genetic trait that white liberals exclusively possess as you imply.
Third, egalitarianism and universalism is demonstrated in all cultures and races.Replies: @MEH 0910, @Zero Philosopher
https://www.prb.org/resources/the-decline-in-u-s-fertility/
Birth rates were very low in the 70’s and most of the 80’s. They rebounded somewhat (not that much) by circa 1987. But since Generation Jones was a massive generation, they didn’t have to have that many kids in order for their children’s generation (Millennials) to be large. And most of their kids were born in the late 80’s-mid 90’s.
*Silents did lead the initial right wing backlash of the late 70's and early 80's, but Boomers will still snorting coke and screwing around.
Gen-X had the best sound by far. This video of Björk at her high school in 1982 shows that. Imagine when a high school singer/artist at a talent show displays a singing ability, intonation and stage presence that is 1,000 X greater than that of the majority of adult seasoned professional singers.
https://youtu.be/nkRCxq0Et5w
The other interesting thing about the video is to see the types 0f Societies that white liberals build when they are left alone. The reason why I say this is because we never see white liberals alone. We always see them inserted in the context of multicultural/multiethnic societies, or in shared communities with white conservatives. Iceland, one of the classic liberal Scandinavian/Germanic countries back in 1982 was probably the closest thing that we have ever seen to "whitetopia". A Society that is 99% and more-or-less without even ideological conflicts. As you can see from videos showing these Scandinavian societies back in the 1970's, they were not exactly hyper-chaotic societies. White liberals might pay a lot of lip service to being in favor of sexual promiscuity, drugs, etc, but the *truth* is that they are the most orderly and conscientious group of human beings to ever walk the face of the Earth.
What this tells me is that liberalism is not the problem per se, but that it only works inserted in a very specific ethnic context. Liberalism is a *group evolutionary strategy of northern Germanic/Scandinavian peoples* It works beautifully when there are only people that were genetically selected over tens of thousands of years towards tolerance, egalitarianism, extremely high conscientiousness and fair play. It falls apart completely when there is even a small number of parasitic/lecherous/hostile foreigners that harbor ethnic resentment towards the majority.
The small minority of white conservatives in Scandinavian/northern Germanic societies never created any problems for those societies. Sure, they might resent the tolerance that these societies historically show towards homosexuals and people with alternative lifestyles, but the white conservative minority does not harbor murderous resentment of an ethnic nature towards the white liberal majority. The non-whites, conversely, do harbor murderous ethnic resentment towards white liberals and are completely tearing these societies apart. Because it is so easy to guilt-trip white liberals into making concessions because of their tendency towards egalitarianism and univeralistic morality, the non-whites are raping, murdering and leeching of the wealth of these societies and the white liberals seem psychologically unable to stop it.
The reason why I bring this up over and over again is because people don't understand how radically important this question is. Steve Sailer focuses a lot on race, but he doesn't focus on the huge psychological difference between the white liberals and the white conservatives. This is *the* fundamental question that will decide whether the United States of America and the entire West survives in the long term or not. The question is this: can white liberals be shown/convinced that all the non-white minorities that they defend do not have their best interests at heart, and do not reciprocate since they lack the egalitarian/universalistic/conscientious mentality that white liberals have? How to convince white liberals that the reason why they think and feel this way is because their ancestors were genetically selected towards that path for tens of thousands of years, and that non-whites will not and cannot become like them?
The fundamental question for the 21rst century is whether white liberals can pull the breaks on their incredibly self-destructive genetic tendency towarfds egalitarianism and universalism which works beautifuly in and ethnically homogenous whte population, but is completely dysfunctional outside the context of mono-ethnic northern European societies.
Who or what can pull the breaks on white liberals and their self-destructive tendencies, considering how incredibly powerful they are?Replies: @Feryl, @Corvinus
Historically, Northern Europeans (and their diaspora countries, e.g. the Anglosphere) have typically had black and white standards of both race and sexuality. E.G. the one drop rule, as well as believing that any sex act with another male means you are gay. Other cultures have more elastic standards, e.g. in sexuality a dominant male can have sex with another male and still maintain a macho hetero persona.
I would say that the egalitarian culture and homogeneity of Northern European (and Japan!) guards against the “situational morality” and decadence/corruption common to most of the world outside of Northern Europe and Japan.
I don’t think the increasingly diverse populations of Europe and the Anglosphere are going to make it possible for their trad. Culture to survive. Already we see that “tolerant” white liberals want black only spaces on campuses, want to muzzle people who notice unpleasant things about “minority” groups, want to strip white rednecks of their guns, etc. Not to mention that mental health, civic engagement, and social trust levels are lowest in ethnically diverse areas of these countries.
Back when Silents and Early Boomers fought for greater free speech rights and civil rights in the 60’s, those generations were remarkably non-diverse and non-white immigration levels were low (as other posters in this thread astutely noted, the high immigration levels of the late 19th century and early 20th century made America whiter). But future generations, who came of age when America was becoming rapidly less white, have had no great causes, instead becoming increasingly cynical. And the South, historically by far the most diverse region, has always been the most reactionary region; it’s hard to unite to be in favor of something with the ever present tension caused by a large black population. But so too will most of the rest of America eventually suffer that fate.
FALSE. The northern Americans, of primarilly eastern English and Scandinavian/Germanic ancestry, NEVER liked slavery, or at least not for 1,000 years.
The Vikings, for instance, accepted women as their queens, even in war! This *is* liberalism in it's essence.
The Puritans that settled in New England came mostly from eastern England, a part of England that was *the most Scandinavian of England* .If you look at the values of the Puritans, like civic responsability, egalitarianism, meritocracy, etc, these are NORTHERN GERMANIC/SCANDINAVIAN values.
The one-drop rule that you speak about was imposed in the south of the U.S, byr a population of whites that is MORE CELTIC, MEDITERRANEAN AND ANGLO-SAXON IN ORIGIN.
The WASPs of the south came mostly from southern England, and had much more Celtic/Anglo-Saxon origins than Scandinavian! You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Scots-Irish are even more Celtic and less nordic than the Puritans were.
Why is it that you dummies can't understand something so simple. Racism, ethnocentrism, tribalism/feminism = Celtic/Anglo-Saxon genetic origin, ancestors of most of today's white conservatives. Liberalism, egalitarianism, gender equality, meritocracy = Scandinavian/northern Germanic, ancestors of today's white liberals.Replies: @Alyosha
If there is any significant analysis to be gleaned from this, it can start with the observation that youth of the postwar bulge would have been spoiled collectively but deprived as individuals-- in psychological, not economic, terms. Those of later cohorts, in smaller families and classes, had the opposite experience. They got the individual attention, good or bad, that we bulge brats missed out on.
One underreported effect which completely corrodes the concept of generational coherence is that of US conscription laws of the time, which changed dramatically. Men born in years from 1946 to about 1954 faced an active draft with various levels of an active war in their nineteenth year. Those born in the next few years had only to register. Then Steve's lucky cohort, born in the last 33 months of the 1950s, never had to register at all, the only such group of Americans since the 1870s. Those born from 1/1/60 onward, e.g. one recent president, reverted to the middle group's experience. Of course, women only felt this indirectly, through brothers and boyfriends.Replies: @Feryl, @Steve Sailer, @Philip Neal
What about actual service in the world wars? To me, it was like the Black Death, something that happened long ago, but my parents, born in 1937 and 1939, had fathers who were absent in WWII and grandfathers who served in the trenches. With hindsight it was unwise to be born in the 1890s and found a family in your twenties. Can it be that the real soundtrack to 1960s Britain was Oh What a Lovely War?
Thanks to Steve for a general interest post.
Millennials had mainly Gen Jones parents. My parents were born in 1960. I definitely know that they wanted their kids not to grow up like they did. On the streets, growing up too fast. Seeing, hearing, and doing too much. Consequently, by the 90’s child behavior was improving. By the late 90’s, teen behavior was improving. What’s astonishing is that late X-ers, who had late Silent and early Boomer parents, were some of the worst behaved children and teenagers ever, driving their parents to beat the hell out of them (late X-ers were the most abused generation of kids ever). Their were widespread predictions in the early 90’s that each generation of teenagers would be worst than the last, and then, youth crime collapsed around 1997.
Strauss and Howe pointed to pop culture depictions of children to illustrate generational trends. Boomers were Dennis the Menace, mischievous but lovable, X-ers were Damien from the Omen, Millennials on the other hand were portrayed as positively angelic, really starting with John Hughes’ late 80’s movies, in which glowing Millennial kids were contrasted with mouthy and angst-ridden teens.
Ocean ‘s Razor-Race and generations are social constructs created by people to delineate certain characteristics. As a result, people engage in discussion as to what extent those observations are accurate.
Gen-X had the best sound by far. This video of Björk at her high school in 1982 shows that. Imagine when a high school singer/artist at a talent show displays a singing ability, intonation and stage presence that is 1,000 X greater than that of the majority of adult seasoned professional singers.
https://youtu.be/nkRCxq0Et5w
The other interesting thing about the video is to see the types 0f Societies that white liberals build when they are left alone. The reason why I say this is because we never see white liberals alone. We always see them inserted in the context of multicultural/multiethnic societies, or in shared communities with white conservatives. Iceland, one of the classic liberal Scandinavian/Germanic countries back in 1982 was probably the closest thing that we have ever seen to "whitetopia". A Society that is 99% and more-or-less without even ideological conflicts. As you can see from videos showing these Scandinavian societies back in the 1970's, they were not exactly hyper-chaotic societies. White liberals might pay a lot of lip service to being in favor of sexual promiscuity, drugs, etc, but the *truth* is that they are the most orderly and conscientious group of human beings to ever walk the face of the Earth.
What this tells me is that liberalism is not the problem per se, but that it only works inserted in a very specific ethnic context. Liberalism is a *group evolutionary strategy of northern Germanic/Scandinavian peoples* It works beautifully when there are only people that were genetically selected over tens of thousands of years towards tolerance, egalitarianism, extremely high conscientiousness and fair play. It falls apart completely when there is even a small number of parasitic/lecherous/hostile foreigners that harbor ethnic resentment towards the majority.
The small minority of white conservatives in Scandinavian/northern Germanic societies never created any problems for those societies. Sure, they might resent the tolerance that these societies historically show towards homosexuals and people with alternative lifestyles, but the white conservative minority does not harbor murderous resentment of an ethnic nature towards the white liberal majority. The non-whites, conversely, do harbor murderous ethnic resentment towards white liberals and are completely tearing these societies apart. Because it is so easy to guilt-trip white liberals into making concessions because of their tendency towards egalitarianism and univeralistic morality, the non-whites are raping, murdering and leeching of the wealth of these societies and the white liberals seem psychologically unable to stop it.
The reason why I bring this up over and over again is because people don't understand how radically important this question is. Steve Sailer focuses a lot on race, but he doesn't focus on the huge psychological difference between the white liberals and the white conservatives. This is *the* fundamental question that will decide whether the United States of America and the entire West survives in the long term or not. The question is this: can white liberals be shown/convinced that all the non-white minorities that they defend do not have their best interests at heart, and do not reciprocate since they lack the egalitarian/universalistic/conscientious mentality that white liberals have? How to convince white liberals that the reason why they think and feel this way is because their ancestors were genetically selected towards that path for tens of thousands of years, and that non-whites will not and cannot become like them?
The fundamental question for the 21rst century is whether white liberals can pull the breaks on their incredibly self-destructive genetic tendency towarfds egalitarianism and universalism which works beautifuly in and ethnically homogenous whte population, but is completely dysfunctional outside the context of mono-ethnic northern European societies.
Who or what can pull the breaks on white liberals and their self-destructive tendencies, considering how incredibly powerful they are?Replies: @Feryl, @Corvinus
“The fundamental question for the 21rst century is whether white liberals can pull the breaks on their incredibly self-destructive genetic tendency towarfds egalitarianism and universalism which works beautifuly in and ethnically homogenous whte population, but is completely dysfunctional outside the context of mono-ethnic northern European societies”
First, the fundamental question in this century is whether America can withstand the extremism political ideologies who are trying to tear to it apart.
Second, egalitarianism and universalism is not a genetic trait that white liberals exclusively possess as you imply.
Third, egalitarianism and universalism is demonstrated in all cultures and races.
https://twitter.com/gcochran99/status/1187796693225369600
https://twitter.com/gcochran99/status/1187797356613263362
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_(musician)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Summers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Copeland
I know not everyone thinks like me, but I still find it odd sometimes how many adults play video games.Replies: @BB753
Videogames turn men into boys. Just like porn. It’s a tragedy that both forms of entertainment are the most popular today among adults and youth alike.
Birth rates were very low in the 70's and most of the 80's. They rebounded somewhat (not that much) by circa 1987. But since Generation Jones was a massive generation, they didn't have to have that many kids in order for their children's generation (Millennials) to be large. And most of their kids were born in the late 80's-mid 90's.Replies: @Feryl
The idea that the 80’s were a “family values” decade is a myth*. Prior to the very tail end of the Reagan era, people didn’t even want to have kids. This all fits into the hedonism cycle that both early and late Boomers fell into from circa 1968-1986. Then Boomers, esp. the Gen Jones later Boomers, pulled an about-face and started having kids and became the first helicopter parents to atone for their own youthful misadventures.
*Silents did lead the initial right wing backlash of the late 70’s and early 80’s, but Boomers will still snorting coke and screwing around.
I would say that the egalitarian culture and homogeneity of Northern European (and Japan!) guards against the "situational morality" and decadence/corruption common to most of the world outside of Northern Europe and Japan.
I don't think the increasingly diverse populations of Europe and the Anglosphere are going to make it possible for their trad. Culture to survive. Already we see that "tolerant" white liberals want black only spaces on campuses, want to muzzle people who notice unpleasant things about "minority" groups, want to strip white rednecks of their guns, etc. Not to mention that mental health, civic engagement, and social trust levels are lowest in ethnically diverse areas of these countries.
Back when Silents and Early Boomers fought for greater free speech rights and civil rights in the 60's, those generations were remarkably non-diverse and non-white immigration levels were low (as other posters in this thread astutely noted, the high immigration levels of the late 19th century and early 20th century made America whiter). But future generations, who came of age when America was becoming rapidly less white, have had no great causes, instead becoming increasingly cynical. And the South, historically by far the most diverse region, has always been the most reactionary region; it's hard to unite to be in favor of something with the ever present tension caused by a large black population. But so too will most of the rest of America eventually suffer that fate.Replies: @Zero Philosopher, @Zero Philosopher
“Historically, Northern Europeans (and their diaspora countries, e.g. the Anglosphere) have typically had black and white standards of both race and sexuality. E.G. the one drop rule, as well as believing that any sex act with another male means you are gay.”
FALSE. The northern Americans, of primarilly eastern English and Scandinavian/Germanic ancestry, NEVER liked slavery, or at least not for 1,000 years.
The Vikings, for instance, accepted women as their queens, even in war! This *is* liberalism in it’s essence. Can you see, say, Arabs of that time accepting a woman as their supreme leader? Hell, they don’t accepe them even today!
The Puritans that settled in New England came mostly from eastern England, a part of England that was *the most Scandinavian of England* .If you look at the values of the Puritans, like civic responsability, egalitarianism, meritocracy, etc, these are NORTHERN GERMANIC/SCANDINAVIAN values.
The one-drop rule that you speak about was imposed in the south of the U.S, byr a population of whites that is MORE CELTIC, MEDITERRANEAN AND ANGLO-SAXON IN ORIGIN.
The WASPs of the south came mostly from southern England, and had much more Celtic/Anglo-Saxon origins than Scandinavian! You clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The Scots-Irish are even more Celtic and less nordic than the Puritans were.
Why is it that you dummies can’t understand something so simple. Racism, ethnocentrism, tribalism/feminism = Celtic/Anglo-Saxon genetic origin, ancestors of most of today’s white conservatives. Liberalism, egalitarianism, gender equality, meritocracy = Scandinavian/northern Germanic, ancestors of today’s white liberals.
I would say that the egalitarian culture and homogeneity of Northern European (and Japan!) guards against the "situational morality" and decadence/corruption common to most of the world outside of Northern Europe and Japan.
I don't think the increasingly diverse populations of Europe and the Anglosphere are going to make it possible for their trad. Culture to survive. Already we see that "tolerant" white liberals want black only spaces on campuses, want to muzzle people who notice unpleasant things about "minority" groups, want to strip white rednecks of their guns, etc. Not to mention that mental health, civic engagement, and social trust levels are lowest in ethnically diverse areas of these countries.
Back when Silents and Early Boomers fought for greater free speech rights and civil rights in the 60's, those generations were remarkably non-diverse and non-white immigration levels were low (as other posters in this thread astutely noted, the high immigration levels of the late 19th century and early 20th century made America whiter). But future generations, who came of age when America was becoming rapidly less white, have had no great causes, instead becoming increasingly cynical. And the South, historically by far the most diverse region, has always been the most reactionary region; it's hard to unite to be in favor of something with the ever present tension caused by a large black population. But so too will most of the rest of America eventually suffer that fate.Replies: @Zero Philosopher, @Zero Philosopher
“Historically, Northern Europeans (and their diaspora countries, e.g. the Anglosphere) have typically had black and white standards of both race and sexuality. E.G. the one drop rule, as well as believing that any sex act with another male means you are gay.”
FALSE. The northern Americans, of primarilly eastern English and Scandinavian/Germanic ancestry, NEVER liked slavery, or at least not for 1,000 years.
The Vikings, for instance, accepted women as their queens, even in war! This *is* liberalism in it’s essence.
The Puritans that settled in New England came mostly from eastern England, a part of England that was *the most Scandinavian of England* .If you look at the values of the Puritans, like civic responsability, egalitarianism, meritocracy, etc, these are NORTHERN GERMANIC/SCANDINAVIAN values.
The one-drop rule that you speak about was imposed in the south of the U.S, byr a population of whites that is MORE CELTIC, MEDITERRANEAN AND ANGLO-SAXON IN ORIGIN.
The WASPs of the south came mostly from southern England, and had much more Celtic/Anglo-Saxon origins than Scandinavian! You clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The Scots-Irish are even more Celtic and less nordic than the Puritans were.
Why is it that you dummies can’t understand something so simple. Racism, ethnocentrism, tribalism/feminism = Celtic/Anglo-Saxon genetic origin, ancestors of most of today’s white conservatives. Liberalism, egalitarianism, gender equality, meritocracy = Scandinavian/northern Germanic, ancestors of today’s white liberals.
This area had the most Norwegian/Danish Viking settlement in both historical accounts and in genetic DNA tests, though even that part of England has much more Anglo-Saxon ancestry than Viking. Vikings only make up a tiny fraction of the ancestry there (10.19%), just a larger tiny fraction than the even tinier fraction they make up in the rest of England, which is only about 6-9% Viking/Scandinavian as a whole depending on which genetic DNA study or survey you look at.
East Anglia is the most Anglo-Saxon part of England, and in particular more Angle than anything else, a group who lived along the Elbe in Northern Germany. It's literally in the name, East Anglia is called EAST ANGLIA precisely because it was the part of England that was settled the most by Angles in all of England and also what came to be known as Anglo-Saxons in general. Literally was the Kingdom of East Angles, East Anglia.
You seem to not realize this and have constructed a mythological narrative that East Anglia has a ton of Viking settlement DNA. It does not. This is like when you tried to falsely claim that El Paso is a Conservative Republican voting city over and over again when in Reality El Paso is overwhelmingly a liberal Democrat city that votes for Liberal Democrats in its local elections, US House elections (Beto O'Rourke), Gubernatorial Elections and Presidential Elections. You are either a very lazy and lame uncreative troll or just a very inaccurate and unobservant commentator, or both.
Wasps of the south? I thought that most elite Southerners were the Cavaliers who settled Virginia. And traditionally, it’s the Puritans who dominated New England who stereotypically are Waspy. Not the Cavaliers, or for that matter, the Quakers who established PA and then the Midwest and eventually attracted Germans and Lutherans who were congenial to Quaker values of quiet Civic virtue and pragmatism. Not dogmatic moralism. And the Scots Irish are a separate group altogether. Read Albion’s Seed. The whites of Suburban and esp. rural Upper Midwest have trended increasingly Republican. Throughout America, college towns and urban areas are monolithically Democrat and expensive coastal areas+most of the Northeast are quite Democrat. Highly educated people in “thinking” occupations tend to be very Democrat.
It’s not the 50’s anymore. Politics are increasingly less based on old settlement patterns. Prior to the 90’s, CA and Oregon were much more libertarian conservative. Prior to the late 2000’s, Colorado was less Democrat. All three states saw something of a combo of higher living cost, influx of highly educated people, more non-white voters, intimidation of conservatives into leaving, etc. over the last 30 years. Meanwhile Texas and Florida are attracting more conservative people. They are also much more affordable than the West coast or coastal Northeast.
Also, my point was that Teutonic people are behaviorally conservative and virtuous (so long as their communities are homogeneous), regardless of their Progressive politics. This flies in the face of Burkean conservative ideology that political Leftism causes corruption and only through political conservatism will man ascend to a higher level. As a matter of fact, most human ethnic groups are naturally prone to corruption regardless of ideology. That’s why dominant males are allowed to engage gay activity and even pederastery without shame. That’s the kind of thing I mean by elastic/situational morality that is endemic throughout most of the world.
Dude. STFU. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Do you even know what "WASP" stands for? Yeah, the Old South was run by a bunch of non-Protestants like Catholics and Jews. Moron.Replies: @Feryl
First, the fundamental question in this century is whether America can withstand the extremism political ideologies who are trying to tear to it apart.
Second, egalitarianism and universalism is not a genetic trait that white liberals exclusively possess as you imply.
Third, egalitarianism and universalism is demonstrated in all cultures and races.Replies: @MEH 0910, @Zero Philosopher
Digital Harpo, state your point, ss your sources are all over the map. How do your citations exactly refute what I stated?
What you stated is beside the point, it’s the frequencies of the genetic variants for the traits in each population that matters, not just their mere existence in every population regardless of their frequency.
But, I am willing to listen to the argument to the contrary. What specific research studies are you able to cite that compares European to non-European groups, as well as draws conclusions within European groups, regarding the frequency of this genetic component?
It's not the 50's anymore. Politics are increasingly less based on old settlement patterns. Prior to the 90's, CA and Oregon were much more libertarian conservative. Prior to the late 2000's, Colorado was less Democrat. All three states saw something of a combo of higher living cost, influx of highly educated people, more non-white voters, intimidation of conservatives into leaving, etc. over the last 30 years. Meanwhile Texas and Florida are attracting more conservative people. They are also much more affordable than the West coast or coastal Northeast.
Also, my point was that Teutonic people are behaviorally conservative and virtuous (so long as their communities are homogeneous), regardless of their Progressive politics. This flies in the face of Burkean conservative ideology that political Leftism causes corruption and only through political conservatism will man ascend to a higher level. As a matter of fact, most human ethnic groups are naturally prone to corruption regardless of ideology. That's why dominant males are allowed to engage gay activity and even pederastery without shame. That's the kind of thing I mean by elastic/situational morality that is endemic throughout most of the world.Replies: @Zero Philosopher
“Wasps of the south? I thought that most elite Southerners were the Cavaliers who settled Virginia”
Dude. STFU. You clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Do you even know what “WASP” stands for? Yeah, the Old South was run by a bunch of non-Protestants like Catholics and Jews. Moron.
And that video cites Albion's Seed.
I'm not talking about LITERAL White Anglo Saxon Protestants, I'm talking about the cultural definition. Jews and Italians don't think Southern whites are lacking in charisma or expressiveness.Replies: @Corvinus
First, the fundamental question in this century is whether America can withstand the extremism political ideologies who are trying to tear to it apart.
Second, egalitarianism and universalism is not a genetic trait that white liberals exclusively possess as you imply.
Third, egalitarianism and universalism is demonstrated in all cultures and races.Replies: @MEH 0910, @Zero Philosopher
Corvinus:
“First, the fundamental question in this century is whether America can withstand the extremism political ideologies who are trying to tear to it apart.”
The *cause* of all this exteemist is multiculturalism and the transfromation of America into a multi-ethnic empire, you idiot. The only other time in it’s history when America was on the verrge of collapse and actually had a Civil War was on matters of race,you imbecile.We are now on the verge of collapse again because of the same issue.
“Second, egalitarianism and universalism is not a genetic trait that white liberals exclusively possess as you imply.”
FALSE. Egalitarianism and universalism are much more common in northern Europeans, especially those of northern Germanic/Scandinavian origin. Other peoples like the Scots-Irish, Celtic English and more eastern European are a lot more tribal, clannish and hostile towards foreigners.
“Third, egalitarianism and universalism is demonstrated in all cultures and races.
FALSE. Only northern Europeans created the liberal values of equality between the sexes, individual rights and moral/legal equality between all.
I have read through your psts, and you are the dumbest poster to have communicated here. It’s incredibly that someone can be so consistently wrong about everything.
So says the extremist. Hence, your inability and unwillingness to honestly admit your ideology is part and parcel to our current divide.
“ Egalitarianism and universalism are much more common in northern Europeans”
No, it’s a human trait. It’s not an exclusive racial or ethnic trait. That’s your elitism showing.
“Only northern Europeans created the liberal values of equality between the sexes, individual rights and moral/legal equality between all.”
No. For example— The Six Nation Haudenosaunee Confederacy had, and still have today, a family/governmental structure based on female authority. Haudenosaunee women controlled the economy in their nations through their responsibilities for growing and distributing the food. They had the final authority over land transfers and decisions about engaging in war. Children came through the mother’s line, not the father’s, and if the parents separated, the children stayed with their mother, and if she died, with her clan family. Women controlled their own property and belongings, as did the children. Political power was shared equally among everyone in the Nation, with decisions made by consensus in this pure democracy, the oldest continuing one in the world.
“I have read through your psts, and you are the dumbest poster to have communicated here”
Ad hominem is not an effective debate tool. You know better. Why debase yourself?
Humans exhibit a strong egalitarian syndrome. The universality of egalitarianism in hunter-gatherers suggests it is an ancient, evolved human pattern. Dare I say that no one group is more likely or unlikely, more prone or less prone, etc. to possess this trait.
But, I am willing to listen to the argument to the contrary. What specific research studies are you able to cite that compares European to non-European groups, as well as draws conclusions within European groups, regarding the frequency of this genetic component?
FALSE. The northern Americans, of primarilly eastern English and Scandinavian/Germanic ancestry, NEVER liked slavery, or at least not for 1,000 years.
The Vikings, for instance, accepted women as their queens, even in war! This *is* liberalism in it's essence.
The Puritans that settled in New England came mostly from eastern England, a part of England that was *the most Scandinavian of England* .If you look at the values of the Puritans, like civic responsability, egalitarianism, meritocracy, etc, these are NORTHERN GERMANIC/SCANDINAVIAN values.
The one-drop rule that you speak about was imposed in the south of the U.S, byr a population of whites that is MORE CELTIC, MEDITERRANEAN AND ANGLO-SAXON IN ORIGIN.
The WASPs of the south came mostly from southern England, and had much more Celtic/Anglo-Saxon origins than Scandinavian! You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Scots-Irish are even more Celtic and less nordic than the Puritans were.
Why is it that you dummies can't understand something so simple. Racism, ethnocentrism, tribalism/feminism = Celtic/Anglo-Saxon genetic origin, ancestors of most of today's white conservatives. Liberalism, egalitarianism, gender equality, meritocracy = Scandinavian/northern Germanic, ancestors of today's white liberals.Replies: @Alyosha
East Anglia was not the most Scandinavian part of England. That would be North Central England in the East Midlands in particular. This area is far to the north of East Anglia.
This area had the most Norwegian/Danish Viking settlement in both historical accounts and in genetic DNA tests, though even that part of England has much more Anglo-Saxon ancestry than Viking. Vikings only make up a tiny fraction of the ancestry there (10.19%), just a larger tiny fraction than the even tinier fraction they make up in the rest of England, which is only about 6-9% Viking/Scandinavian as a whole depending on which genetic DNA study or survey you look at.
East Anglia is the most Anglo-Saxon part of England, and in particular more Angle than anything else, a group who lived along the Elbe in Northern Germany. It’s literally in the name, East Anglia is called EAST ANGLIA precisely because it was the part of England that was settled the most by Angles in all of England and also what came to be known as Anglo-Saxons in general. Literally was the Kingdom of East Angles, East Anglia.
You seem to not realize this and have constructed a mythological narrative that East Anglia has a ton of Viking settlement DNA. It does not. This is like when you tried to falsely claim that El Paso is a Conservative Republican voting city over and over again when in Reality El Paso is overwhelmingly a liberal Democrat city that votes for Liberal Democrats in its local elections, US House elections (Beto O’Rourke), Gubernatorial Elections and Presidential Elections. You are either a very lazy and lame uncreative troll or just a very inaccurate and unobservant commentator, or both.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Garment.jpg
How does the Romney vote break down by sex? Not just in general elections in Utah and Massachusetts, where partisanism is a factor, but in primaries in those states, and in presidential primaries in other states?
Utah Territory was the first jurisdiction in the world to hold an election with universal female suffrage. Even before Wyoming.Replies: @Inquiring Mind
Which one of those suits of clothes does Mr. Romney wear?
I am thinking his old-age flab fits better into the one on the right.
Dude. STFU. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Do you even know what "WASP" stands for? Yeah, the Old South was run by a bunch of non-Protestants like Catholics and Jews. Moron.Replies: @Feryl
Grow up. Name calling? Go read Albion’s seed. The whites who predominated the South are not the same as Yankee Puritans. In fact, they can’t stand them. White Southerners are generally stereotyped as uncouth, backward, and provincial. WASP Northerners are stereotyped as painfully boring and earnestly uptight. There’s a YouTube video about American settlement patterns and the white settlers of the South were notoriously anti-intellectual and ill-tempered, while Yankee Puritans were so disciplined and orderly they had literal laws against wasting time.
And that video cites Albion’s Seed.
I’m not talking about LITERAL White Anglo Saxon Protestants, I’m talking about the cultural definition. Jews and Italians don’t think Southern whites are lacking in charisma or expressiveness.
Since when?
Anyways, white Americans, and in particular southerners, didn’t have any affection for Italians….
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=qc_pubs
or Jews.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4466553
And that video cites Albion's Seed.
I'm not talking about LITERAL White Anglo Saxon Protestants, I'm talking about the cultural definition. Jews and Italians don't think Southern whites are lacking in charisma or expressiveness.Replies: @Corvinus
“Jews and Italians don’t think Southern whites are lacking in charisma or expressiveness.”
Since when?
Anyways, white Americans, and in particular southerners, didn’t have any affection for Italians….
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=qc_pubs
or Jews.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4466553
“The *cause* of all this exteemist is multiculturalism and the transfromation of America into a multi-ethnic empire,”
So says the extremist. Hence, your inability and unwillingness to honestly admit your ideology is part and parcel to our current divide.
“ Egalitarianism and universalism are much more common in northern Europeans”
No, it’s a human trait. It’s not an exclusive racial or ethnic trait. That’s your elitism showing.
“Only northern Europeans created the liberal values of equality between the sexes, individual rights and moral/legal equality between all.”
No. For example— The Six Nation Haudenosaunee Confederacy had, and still have today, a family/governmental structure based on female authority. Haudenosaunee women controlled the economy in their nations through their responsibilities for growing and distributing the food. They had the final authority over land transfers and decisions about engaging in war. Children came through the mother’s line, not the father’s, and if the parents separated, the children stayed with their mother, and if she died, with her clan family. Women controlled their own property and belongings, as did the children. Political power was shared equally among everyone in the Nation, with decisions made by consensus in this pure democracy, the oldest continuing one in the world.
“I have read through your psts, and you are the dumbest poster to have communicated here”
Ad hominem is not an effective debate tool. You know better. Why debase yourself?
As of this writing, article cannot be found at the Taki site. Links in your post lead to “You’ve reached this page in error”, and article is missing from your Taki index page.
““Generation Jones”, born from roughly 1955-1965…”
Where does the term Generation Jones come from?
Column still missing from Taki Mag site.