Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Even if it did, a psychiatric diagnosis can only be made after a full evaluation, including a history and mental status exam. But saying "you're crazy" or "you're delusional" isn't really a diagnosis is it.

We all have seat-of-the-pants ideas of what constitutes craziness. We all know that chemically-induced misbehavior (like drunkenness) is impaired. Most of us recognize variations from normality such as senility and psychosis. Such is not good for a clinical diagnosis, but it is good for getting someone in need of help to a place where one gets help. Or at the least one can get him or her out of danger to himself or others.

Eccentricity? If one is Einstein or Picasso one can get away with it. Doing something that first seems crazy and then proves obvious is genius. Doing something that first seems crazy and then remains crazy... and then that one defends as genius even though one is certifiably mediocre is crazy.

So dressing up like Napoleon Bonaparte and making official proclamations as Emperor of France for non-theatrical reasons is crazy. Saying that the President is an incompetent fool isn't. Napoleon was not crazy; he really was a genius.

Taking a look back ...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The GIs were what the Boomers were rebelling against. So everything the Boomers hate is what the GIs stood for, roughly speaking. If you're a Civic, that's what you can expect from your kids' generation, if S&H are correct.

If you want specifics from the last time, the biggest area is what Eisenhower called "the military industrial complex". GIs got involved in the war in Viet Nam, and established a draft for Boomers that was the primary cause of their rebellion. GIs took it for granted, since they had all been drafted into WWII, that they should just repeat what they experienced. Boomers didn't want it. Having a draft for a war like Viet Nam was a terrible idea, and opposing that draft is the one thing from the 2T that I can sympathize with. Also the Boomer love of the arts as youth, although their leadership has produced horrible art.

I don't get it, either. Where's the openly stated racial and gender bigotry here? (How "crazy" BButler described it.)

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Taking a look back ...


I don't get it, either. Where's the openly stated racial and gender bigotry here? (How "crazy" BButler described it.)

Not if you pick his one and only sane post from his recent collection, no you don't see it.......

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If terrorists are able to seek shelter with sympathizers in order to launch a war that will kill millions it is not fanaticism or a crime against humanity that in order to forestall this threat a government decides to round up not only the terrorists but their support networks and sympathizers for summary execution.

Maybe arresting them is in order, depending on what they are doing, but not necessarily executing them. Executing all enemies is what the Islamic State does. That's how they run their State, by executing all opponents. Your model of a reorganized government is akin to that of the Islamic State, which upholds the values of the agricultural age, aka the red and blue value-meme stages in spiral dynamics.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not if you pick his one and only sane post from his recent collection, no you don't see it.......

That was the post which Crazy Bob quoted.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Jordan, I think you're finding out the reason why European Nationalism is coming to the fore again, more importantly it is coming not from Boomers and Xers in Europe but from Millies. Indeed UKIP grabbed the majority share of the youth vote in the last UK General Election, and the youth tended to side more with the Lib Dems.

FInding out? I've been expecting the return of EuroNationalism for years now.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

FInding out? I've been expecting the return of EuroNationalism for years now.

When borders are difficult to cross, people usually cross them for the right reasons. The typical exchange student is an above-average example of his country, someone uncharacteristically flexible of mind and well-behaved. The reveler on holiday is not so well behaved, and neither is the unemployed worker who can't find work in Greece but who maybe might find menial work in Germany.

People able to cross national borders with as little difficulty as people crossing state lines in the US are going to learn how different people are on the other side of those borders when those borders are ethnic lines.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Taking a look back ...


I don't get it, either. Where's the openly stated racial and gender bigotry here? (How "crazy" BButler described it.)

Me neither.


Prince

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

FInding out? I've been expecting the return of EuroNationalism for years now.

I likewise have been expecting it, since about 2007 or so. When I first proposed that the Eurozone would be under severe strain come the next business cycle (never mind a deflationary depression) there would be a return to European Nationalism. It seems that events have borne that prediction out. Of course I was told I didn't know what I was talking about when I first said, yet when I compare my conjecture notes from then with the headlines...I'm seeing a great deal playing out exactly as I predicted.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

When borders are difficult to cross, people usually cross them for the right reasons. The typical exchange student is an above-average example of his country, someone uncharacteristically flexible of mind and well-behaved. The reveler on holiday is not so well behaved, and neither is the unemployed worker who can't find work in Greece but who maybe might find menial work in Germany.

People able to cross national borders with as little difficulty as people crossing state lines in the US are going to learn how different people are on the other side of those borders when those borders are ethnic lines.

You're missing something key here with Europe. Those boundaries have been set by a specific chain of historical events unlike US state lines which are by and large arbitrary creations of Congress.

I would also say that the movements of Europeans within Europe doesn't seem to be the major problem, but rather the movement of immigrants through Europe and the EU wanting to pursue a wet foot dry foot policy with these "refugees".

Jordan - And yet, Mr. Webster chose to spell his first name with an unaspirated and hence unnecessary consonant. Shooner shematics indeed. Back 25-30 years ago when I was still teaching a Modern Britain course, I would always digress for 15 minutes or so with an exposition on the disjunction between British spelling and pronunciation of proper names and places. I was ever in debt to the Featherstonhaughs and Cholmondeleys of the English speaking world for a little comic relief, while Mr. Webster, if he had had his way, would have rendered ye olde sod barely recognisable.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

That was the post which Crazy Bob quoted.

but not one of the many posts in which JPT made bigoted remarks.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

You're missing something key here with Europe. Those boundaries have been set by a specific chain of historical events unlike US state lines which are by and large arbitrary creations of Congress.

True. State boundaries in the United States are often lines of latitude and longitude. For residents of Utah, Colorado, and Kansas, 37 N is the southern state line. For residents of Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, 37 N is the northern state line. A book is out on why the US state lines are where they are. The 42nd parallel of north latitude that divides Oregon and Idaho on the north from California, Nevada, and Utah to the south is that when Britain and Spain split the territory the rivers north of the 42nd parallel generally flowed north (Columbia Basin) and those to the south generally flowed south (Sacramento, Humboldt, Great Salt Lake, and Colorado valleys) Subsequent exploration showed that such was a fairly-good estimate applicable under American rule. Some involve the vilest decision in American history. Slave-state Missouri grasped onto the Missouri Bootheel (which in many ways might as well be in Mississippi) so that the state could remain a slave state. The northern boundary of Texas would never reach Colorado and Kansas at the 37th parallel of latitude because slave-owning politicians wanted no non-slave territory in Texas.* The 36'30" line of the Missouri Compromise determined how far north slavery could be extended west of the Mississippi. Oklahoma was a territory long after the Civil War, so its boundaries have nothing to do with the issue of slavery except that Texas never got to annex what would become the narrow strip of land separating Colorado and Kansas in the north from Texas in the south.

I would also say that the movements of Europeans within Europe doesn't seem to be the major problem, but rather the movement of immigrants through Europe and the EU wanting to pursue a wet foot dry foot policy with these "refugees".

Most Europeans still have a residual antipathy toward the Turks who long played an important (if in many places unwelcome) role in European history. "Europe, Siberia, and and the Mediterranean Basin" makes more of sense as a historical reality than does some water boundary that used to be more a connector than a barrier. North Africa has little in common with Sub-Saharan Africa, and what is now Turkey was once the Greek-ruled and later Roman-ruled Asia Minor. As for Siberia -- even Vladivostok has far more in common with Moscow than with far-closer Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo, or Manila.

*Oddly the Texas Panhandle seems a part of the American Midwest than any part of the South. Texas straddles American regions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

but not one of the many posts in which JPT made bigoted remarks.

I don't get why Crazy Bob would quote a non- bigoted post and call it bigoted. Maybe that's why he got called crazy.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I don't get why Crazy Bob would quote a non- bigoted post and call it bigoted. Maybe that's why he got called crazy.

If you say that's what "Crazy Bob" did. I think a lot of JPT's posts were quoted by several people, and his bigotry was pointed out by several people. One quote by Crazy Bob really means nothing.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

True. State boundaries in the United States are often lines of latitude and longitude. For residents of Utah, Colorado, and Kansas, 37 N is the southern state line. For residents of Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, 37 N is the northern state line. A book is out on why the US state lines are where they are. The 42nd parallel of north latitude that divides Oregon and Idaho on the north from California, Nevada, and Utah to the south is that when Britain and Spain split the territory the rivers north of the 42nd parallel generally flowed north (Columbia Basin) and those to the south generally flowed south (Sacramento, Humboldt, Great Salt Lake, and Colorado valleys) Subsequent exploration showed that such was a fairly-good estimate applicable under American rule. Some involve the vilest decision in American history. Slave-state Missouri grasped onto the Missouri Bootheel (which in many ways might as well be in Mississippi) so that the state could remain a slave state. The northern boundary of Texas would never reach Colorado and Kansas at the 37th parallel of latitude because slave-owning politicians wanted no non-slave territory in Texas.* The 36'30" line of the Missouri Compromise determined how far north slavery could be extended west of the Mississippi. Oklahoma was a territory long after the Civil War, so its boundaries have nothing to do with the issue of slavery except that Texas never got to annex what would become the narrow strip of land separating Colorado and Kansas in the north from Texas in the south.

One with a cursory idea about US history would understand the particular state boundaries of most states. Suffice it to say that political rather than ethnic lines were the ones upon which the US' map was drawn. I don't need a book to tell me that really, just a high school teacher in my house who finds the series "How the States Got Their Shapes" useful for Freshman Geography.

Most Europeans still have a residual antipathy toward the Turks who long played an important (if in many places unwelcome) role in European history. "Europe, Siberia, and and the Mediterranean Basin" makes more of sense as a historical reality than does some water boundary that used to be more a connector than a barrier. North Africa has little in common with Sub-Saharan Africa, and what is now Turkey was once the Greek-ruled and later Roman-ruled Asia Minor. As for Siberia -- even Vladivostok has far more in common with Moscow than with far-closer Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo, or Manila.

*Oddly the Texas Panhandle seems a part of the American Midwest than any part of the South. Texas straddles American regions.

I'm trying to figure out if you are making an argument here or an agreement. I will, however, point out that with the Turks, Greek rule over Asia Minor ended some 500 or so years ago. The Ottomans saw to that being a Central Asian Turkic people.

As to Russia I would not consider that to be European but rather Eurasian. The Russians are different, always have been. Vladivostok is a Russian city transported some 11 time zones east really and was constructed primarily as a warm water port and terminus for the trans-Siberian railway.

With Europe you have loads of cultural and historical baggage. Whole books have been written about the ins and outs of rivalries between France, Britain, Spain, Italy and so on. To expect that baggage to disappear with a common currency and a customs union was quite frankly absurd. A United States of Europe is not possible because of that baggage.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

One with a cursory idea about US history would understand the particular state boundaries of most states. Suffice it to say that political rather than ethnic lines were the ones upon which the US' map was drawn. I don't need a book to tell me that really, just a high school teacher in my house who finds the series "How the States Got Their Shapes" useful for Freshman Geography.

That's the book. The weirdest boundary is between Delaware and Pennsylvania, an arc.

I'm trying to figure out if you are making an argument here or an agreement. I will, however, point out that with the Turks, Greek rule over Asia Minor ended some 500 or so years ago. The Ottomans saw to that being a Central Asian Turkic people.

Statement of fact. There were also Greek communities in Turkey as late as the 1920s, and the Greeks tries do win those back after World War I but lost them in a catastrophic war for Greece.

As to Russia I would not consider that to be European but rather Eurasian. The Russians are different, always have been. Vladivostok is a Russian city transported some 11 time zones east really and was constructed primarily as a warm water port and terminus for the trans-Siberian railway.

The Russians are Slavs with linguistic relatedness to such people as Poles, Czechs, and Slovenes who consider themselves unambiguously Western, and their presence even in the Urals is relatively recent. Great achievements in Russian literature and music have been informed by the European heritage -- and they are better received in countries generally considered Western than elsewhere.

With Europe you have loads of cultural and historical baggage. Whole books have been written about the ins and outs of rivalries between France, Britain, Spain, Italy and so on. To expect that baggage to disappear with a common currency and a customs union was quite frankly absurd. A United States of Europe is not possible because of that baggage.

The American Civil War is still relevant to contemporary politics in America.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That's the book. The weirdest boundary is between Delaware and Pennsylvania, an arc.

I'm not familiar with a book by that title, but I have seen the series. The BF ordered it on VHS and DVD from the History Channel people. He calls it a teaching aid. I call it something to watch whilst bored out of my mind.

The Russians are Slavs with linguistic relatedness to such people as Poles, Czechs, and Slovenes who consider themselves unambiguously Western, and their presence even in the Urals is relatively recent. Great achievements in Russian literature and music have been informed by the European heritage -- and they are better received in countries generally considered Western than elsewhere.

Russians themselves do not necessarily see themselves as European. Seriously you should go to Russia some time and try telling them that they are European--it will be fun, trust me. In any case your statement would be only true of Belorussians, Ukrainians and Great Russians. Much of the rest of the population of the Russian Federation is something other than Great Russian.

The American Civil War is still relevant to contemporary politics in America.

Only in the South. Outside of Southern Whites it is not particularly relevant these days. Well it may be relevant to you but it seems that you compare every evil in the world with Thug Japan (as you call it), Nazis or the Confederacy. Otherwise I cannot remember when a conversation about the Civil War came up with me unless it was the BF complaining about having to teach about it and how his students by and large are ignorant of the most basic information about it. If anything the apparent relevancy of the ACW is due to sectional differences within the Union that have existed since 1789. As I said elsewhere sectionalism is a feature of the system, not a bug.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Boomers on the whole were great parents and parental figures. Cannot speak for xers and will probably get hate from them because shock horror i am saying something nice about them but from my experience they wanted to pass on their knowledge, their vision and keep us millies safe. Now watch xers read this and let their heads explode.

My parents are Boomers, and they were generally good parents. S&H requires generalization from the whole, but there are always exceptions. Mine have been married for 46 years now, and they are Christians who attempt to do the right thing. They did not participate in the "counterculture", and have disdain for those who did. That said, all 3 of their siblings are divorced, and have bad relationships with their kids (my cousins) to the point where they're barely on speaking terms in a couple of cases. All of my peers had Boomer parents, and many of the things I saw from them were unconscionable. Infidelity, divorce, drug abuse, all done right in front of the kids with no remorse. One of my peers from high school later recounted how his parents, in apparent belief in "free love" used to regularly have sex in front of them, with the doors open from their bedroom to the living room where the kids were watching TV, and participated in "wife swapping" with their "best friends" from down the road. They were what was known as "swingers". That's just one example of many.

I'm a fairly late Xer, just pre-Millenial (1975). Early Xers have Silent parents, younger ones have Boomer parents. Early Millenials have Boomer parents, younger ones have Xer parents.

What happened to some degree is that when society saw how badly children were being damaged and abused by the "Awakening" (go listen to grunge if you want to wallow in the self-loathing and disregard Xers grew up with), they started to have some remorse. They didn't want their children to turn out like Xers, so they started coddling them, while also systematically brainwashing them into a sanitized and "dressed up" version of the dogmas of the "Awakening". Those are the Millenials, of which you're an example.

There is definitely a difference I've been observing as the younger, Xer-parented Millenials have started to come of age. They're a little more skeptical and cynical, and a little more politically conservative than the older Millenials the Boomers fawn over. They're also, as befits children of Xers, less spoiled, and emerging into a terrible economy that makes their future look bleak.

To round off the subject, my brother has two young children who are going to be Artists. They are definitely being micro-managed, and I can already start to see some personality traits from them that fit. In a very general way, I can see some similarities between my 10 year old nephew and someone like John McCain, an early Silent whose birth timing would be analogous from the previous saeculum.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I don't get why Crazy Bob would quote a non- bigoted post and call it bigoted. Maybe that's why he got called crazy.

Yep. And all of the same old Boomer usual suspects have now flooded this thread, and showed why I eventually put them all on ignore, before finally giving up and leaving. I'm sure the real problem is better described as a handicap, something on the autism spectrum, which seems to be extremely widespread on this site, but there is also a pathological quality to the ideological dogma, and a heavy dose of delusion that is shared very widely across the left. That's mass delusion and propaganda though, which is arguably separate from individual psychological issues.

"They might have guns, but we have flowers".

In any case, when someone has a deep seated pathological need to demonize anyone who questions their tightly held world view, there are only two possibilities. They are either mentally ill, or they are engaged in deliberate, knowing slander as a tactic of political propaganda. So by concluding that Bob Butler's deranged post arises from mental illness, I'm actually giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I don't get why Crazy Bob would quote a non- bigoted post and call it bigoted. Maybe that's why he got called crazy.

Maybe because he also quoted his bigoted posts, and called them bigoted? Which they were?

You like to take a word or a post out of context and criticize it, but I recommend looking at the larger context and meaning of things.

Maybe hard for someone who has 3 aggressive planets in Virgo, me thinks.......... but hope springs eternal..........

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yep. And all of the same old Boomer usual suspects have now flooded this thread, and showed why I eventually put them all in ignore, before finally giving up and leaving. I'm sure the real problem is better described as a handicap, something on the autism spectrum, which seems to be extremely widespread on this site, but there is also a pathological quality to the ideological dogma, and a heavy dose of delusion that is shared very widely across the left. That's mass delusion and propaganda though, which is arguably separate from individual psychological issues.

In any case, when someone has a deep seated pathological need to demonize anyone who questions their tightly held world view, there are only two possibilities. They are either mentally ill, or they are engaged in deliberate, knowing slander as a tactic of political propaganda. So by concluding that Bob Butler's deranged post arises from mental illness, I'm actually giving him the benefit of the doubt.

You are welcome as far as I'm concerned to state your views here. I don't want this to be an echo chamber. Just don't expect your views not to be answered by those of us who disagree, and who think that what you sometimes accuse others of (like the above), applies to yourself the accuser.

Anyway, this is what it comes down to on the subject of Boomer influence, and all of the issues discussed in this thread so far:

Boomers have hollowed out society in such a way that it cannot and will not survive unless their dogma is rejected. And it may be too late. There are a number of components that all work together to produce this result. There are certain things that any nation needs to have if it is going to survive. Boomers have assaulted them all.

First, by relentlessly focusing on the negative aspects of American and Western history, they have discredited the political principles and philosophy the nation is based on. If all of the founders of the US were horrible people, the things they stood for must be rejected as well, including the Constitution. The entire philosophical framework of self government and democracy is discredited.

Second, "identity politics" fosters enormous division, refuses to let it heal, and disintegrates the very premise of a single, united country. "Multiculturalism" treats efforts at assimilation as reprehensible racism. Once again, the people are not allowed to get along, and not allowed to see themselves as part of a single, unified country.

Third, the cultural influence that always unified society, despite all of the disagreements and differences that existed, was Christianity. Not much needs to be said about the Boomer assault on religious faith and traditional morality.

So the United States only ever had two things that held it together as a society. In simplest form, they were the Constitution and the Bible.

Now, add on top of that the Boomer drive towards "globalization", which has included a massive influx of foreign immigrants, legal and illegal, and a refusal to enforce immigration laws. The people coming in are not forced to assimilate as they were in the past, and any suggestion that they should be is denounced.

What all of it adds up to is a "Tower of Babel" where there may be a common language, but Boomer political correctness has guaranteed division and tribalism so deep that people identify with their "identity group", and reject the society as a whole. Nothing holds the society together, and there are no controls over who comes in.

Meanwhile, the privileged elites in the "ruling class" use all of this ideological posturing of "Boomer values" as an excuse to ignore the law, and impose laws undemocratically through executive and judicial fiat, while enriching themselves. The ultimate masters of that game are, of course, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is less interested in the enrichment (although it's a given he'll make out like a bandit), and more interested in imposing his dogma on the people whether they vote for it or not.

What we are seeing then, is terrorists who have correctly assessed the massive weaknesses in the societies Boomers have brought about, and are exploiting them at every opportunity. The arrogance, decadence and complacency of the affluent, white western left and their amoral corporate partners has created a situation that cannot be sustained.

It is illustrated clearly and repeatedly when Boomer elites respond to terrorism with some version of, "we're not going to compromise our values!". They always try to pretend those are long standing values, when in fact they are merely Boomer values. They are willing to put their own citizens at risk in order to maintain political correctness, multi-culturalism, and economic globalism. It's that simple.

The founders of the US were very conscious of what happened to Rome, and they did their best to forestall the same outcome. We have the example of history, the greatest empire of all time, which disintegrated and disappeared. We're ignoring it, and it's happening again. Thanks Boomers (and everyone who follows them unthinkingly). Of course, the Boomers will die off without fully suffering the consequences, which will be left to their children and grandchildren. Which is, of course, totally in keeping with their character since the day they were born.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe because he also quoted his bigoted posts, and called them bigoted? Which they were?

You like to take a word or a post out of context and criticize it, but I recommend looking at the larger context and meaning of things.

Maybe hard for someone who has 3 aggressive planets in Virgo, me thinks.......... but hope springs eternal..........

Ah yes, it must be about aggressive planets. Nothing to do with Bob's post at all.
Thanks for clearing that up.

(JPT) All of my peers had Boomer parents, and many of the things I saw from them were unconscionable. Infidelity, divorce, drug abuse, all done right in front of the kids with no remorse. One of my peers from high school later recounted how his parents, in apparent belief in "free love" used to regularly have sex in front of them, with the doors open from their bedroom to the living room where the kids were watching TV, and participated in "wife swapping" with their "best friends" from down the road. They were what was known as "swingers". That's just one example of many.

I don't think all your posts are bigoted. This post wasn't. That doesn't mean there aren't other points of view toward this stuff. I think infidelity, divorce, open sex, wife swapping and using drugs are choices that people make. They go against traditional morality, and for most people traditional morality keeps people out of trouble. But some "swingers" think they can handle it. Free love was an experiment that some boomers and silents engaged in because they felt restricted and un-loved. It often was a failure, but it worked for some people too. Divorce allowed unhappy marriages to end, which was beneficial for children in many cases, especially if the parents found a better marriage later.

Some children were damaged in the Awakening. But others were damaged by more traditional upbringing too, and in other times. Silents themselves were horribly treated by their parents, from what they told me. They were oppressed, and sexually abused. They were violently punished. Lies and secrets abounded. So Silents rebelled. Many Boomers grew up in households where parents were distant and unloving, and forced to stay together in loveless and abusive marriages. Abuse and repression has gone on in American families for decades and centuries. If Xers turn out like the Lost, severe and restrictive parents, their artist children may be resentful and embrace free love and "liberation" like many Silents did. Perhaps progress happens and the spiral will be more gentle; we can hope.

The expert on dysfunctional families, born June 29, 1933:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bradshaw_(author)

One clip from the family show from the 1980s:


We'd better understand the system of the family, he says. The problems of society come out of the structures of our families.

a half person + 1 half person makes 1/4 of a relationship. You don't have to know anything to be a parent.
https://youtu.be/vwwmlpwM0I8

Repressed feelings in families:
https://youtu.be/NPsbD6Gts1g

Violent abuse and addiction in families and the results:
https://youtu.be/stBGhq5dTiY

Only Boomers had dysfunctional families? I beg to differ.