Originally Posted by Taramarie

I actually hear more of what is going on politically in America than i do in my own country lol

I'm very sorry about that. You make me want to move to New Zealand.

When it comes to Xers and Boomers, maybe the best way of putting it is that we know where the bodies are buried.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm very sorry about that. You make me want to move to New Zealand.

When it comes to Xers and Boomers, maybe the best way of putting it is that we know where the bodies are buried.

Right wing is in power here. National. But they are different again to what I hear about Republicans/conservatives etc. It is not so polarized here. But Americans have told me they view NZ as a socialist country so it may not be your cup of tea. I guess we are in comparison. But things are cheaper and health care is optional and doc/meds are affordable. An American told me the cost for healthcare and just for seeing a doc and meds. I just about choked off. She reacted the same when i told her doc here is $37, you do not have to have health care and do not get penalized for not having it and meds, $5 for each prescription with 2 repeats that are paid for with the $5.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If S&H were right, and if some kind of massive war is inevitable, it is absolutely clear that it will be Islamic terrorism that will be the cause. The only question is when it will ignite a full conflict, and whether it will result in yet another western occupation and re-shaping of the Middle East, or the collapse and destruction of Europe and the United States, and a new dark age for the 21st century.

More intense action will happen next April and May. After that, we can expect a major war to break out in Dec./Jan 2020-21. But US involvement will be marginal. We still won't be ready to take the lead. In 2025 though, intervention seems likely.

I'm not convinced S&H's predictions about the future were accurate, though. They were certainly pretty far off about Millenials, unless they undergo a major transformation in their thinking.

I thought this video did a good job of demolishing that notion.
https://youtu.be/LD0x7ho_IYc

Millennials turned out to be the well-behaved generation S&H predicted. I am quite surprised their predictions turned out as well as they did. In addition to being well-behaved, their tendencies toward tech sophistication and collegial cooperation among themselves are remarkable confirmation of S&H predictions. The only thing they need to complete the picture is greater civic participation. That means voting in every election, so they can defeat your party in midterms!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

More intense action will happen next April and May. After that, we can expect a major war to break out in Dec./Jan 2020-21. But US involvement will be marginal. We still won't be ready to take the lead. In 2025 though, intervention seems likely.



I thought this video did a good job of demolishing that notion.
https://youtu.be/LD0x7ho_IYc

Millennials turned out to be the well-behaved generation S&H predicted. I am quite surprised their predictions turned out as well as they did. In addition to being well-behaved, their tendencies toward tech sophistication and collegial cooperation among themselves are remarkable confirmation of S&H predictions. The only thing they need to complete the picture is greater civic participation. That means voting in every electionso they can defeat your party in midterms!

I do here in NZ and vote every single time as well as volunteer work and sharing information with all my kiwi mates. Not the conspiracy stuff but like for instance, the change of the flag here. John Key wants to change it and is trying to give us no choice. But we DO have a right to have a choice! It is legally our right. So, I simply typed out that right we have, and told them what they can do about it to refuse Jks change of the flag....and told everyone to share this info with every kiwi they know and tell their friends to share too etc etc.
But apparently I am a caricature of a millie so, naturally i would pmsl

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If S&H were right, and if some kind of massive war is inevitable, it is absolutely clear that it will be Islamic terrorism that will be the cause. The only question is when it will ignite a full conflict, and whether it will result in yet another western occupation and re-shaping of the Middle East, or the collapse and destruction of Europe and the United States, and a new dark age for the 21st century.

I'm not convinced S&H's predictions about the future were accurate, though. They were certainly pretty far off about Millenials, unless they undergo a major transformation in their thinking.

If we do get a crises war it can't help but snap every generation into a new adult role. That's what 2T's and 4T's do. Were not going to have a global international response to Islamic extremists, both Shia and Sunni, without it transforming us all.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

What western traditions? Your globalist humanistic society would have been utterly foreign to just about any westerner who lived prior to about 1900 or so, if not even as late as 1950.

What Western traditions? The ones going back to at least the Age of Reason. The Rights of Man within The State. The ones that you have shown absolutely no respect for in most of your posts.

You should be happy. Your ''restorer'' is very well likely to have his chance in the next few years. Beware, he may well find a reason deem you weak and unworthy of his new order. And for his own reasons that seem unfair to you. There's a thousand Rohms for every Hitler.

I am not moved to write a full length defense of the Blue world view. I'll throw out a few isolated thoughts.

Sexual health issues are incredibly emotional. Those with different central values are not going to agree, but that does not imply those who disagree are insane, perverse, evil, etc...

I'm all in favor of defending sentient beings and especially US citizens, but have little patience with those who can't distinguish between sentient beings and medical waste.

A woman going into a hospital or medical center should expect health care. It should not be denied based on the whims of whomever happens to be on duty that night. To me, this is a rights issue that stands akin to the base point famously established at that Woolworth's lunch counter. If one is providing service to the public, one must provide services to the public and not think one's personal prejudices allow denial of service.

Many of those with strong opinions on sexual health issues base their opinions on religious beliefs. I have no problem with individuals practicing their beliefs, but they should not be allowed to force their religious values on others who do not share these beliefs.

I favor equal pay for equal work and do not favor corporate cultures where one gender (or race, or religion) gets an extraordinary portion of the promotions above a given point.

I see the awakening beginning roughly with the JFK assassination and the arrival of the Beatles. Considerable civil rights protests began well before that time. I have often thought that the black community caught the awakening mood well before the rest of the country. Still, the major triumphs of the civil rights movement didn't come until the entire country was awakening and the Blue Boomers were in full cry. I might credit the black civil rights movement for demonstrating the intensity and commitment required to change the Establishment. They gave the Blue Boomers a blueprint used to advance other issues such as peace, gender equality and the environment.

Regarding economics, during the Awakening, the Democrats were doing Keynes spend to stimulate during down times but reduce the debt during good times. The Republicans hadn't bought into borrow and spend deficit stimulation yet. Conservative economics during the Awakening favored minimum debt always. The difference between the major parties on economics are thus very different today. Economics is one modern issue that didn't grow out of the Blue Boomer's Awakening push.

I have stated my opinions on Bush 43's destabilization of the Middle East that I don't feel a need to repeat myself. My opinions on global warming and the environment are also well enough documented on these forums.

Now, JPT just made his opinions on women's issues and Boomers clear enough. To me, it appears that his religious base values have led him into a hateful and hurtful place. At other times he has addressed the other issues, where he speaks from a similar place. Sure, if he were interested in letting go of this hate - notably of Boomers, but he hates a lot of folk - he might talk to a minister or psychologist. He ought to let folks be, not to try to force them to comply with his religious convictions. I don't think he has an interest in such a change, so I think this would be quite futile, so I wouldn't push it. Likely enough, his minister would only want to encourage the hate.

But as far as I can tell he's a functional member of society. I can sort of more or less understand where he is coming from, but quite firmly disagree.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Well, if he's going to call me a bigot/racist/xenophobe/etc who wants to bring back segregation, maybe even slavery, I'd say my response was mild.

This is what Bob Butler said recently, I think, which you refer to:

Now, JPT doesn't much distinguish between Blue Boomers and Red Boomers. He just doesn't like Boomers. If he dislikes everything the Boomers stand for he would be in opposition to racial and gender equality. Of course, you can't get away with saying that openly. There is always a degree of indirection involved. He will often disparage what the Blue Boomers stood for without explicitly stating what he is disparaging. However, it is often there if you look for it.

I'm not going to look through all of your posts and see if I can find specifically "what (you are) disparaging." Maybe you don't oppose racial and gender equality. But he had a point that if you disparage what "boomers" wanted, without being specific, you would have to include those things in the package. And the general drift of your comments seems to be that you think the liberal reforms of the sixties weakened our society. Plus, I don't notice that you speak out about the black lives matter movement. Do you? Are you concerned about cops shooting unarmed black people, or not? And the drift of what you say below doesn't indicate favor toward equality too much either. Who do you suppose tend to have extra trouble getting ID cards? Who would be less likely to vote if it is made less convenient?

Anyway, this may surprise you if your only source of information is the far left, but overwhelming majorities of the public support ID being required for voting, regardless of race, ethnicity, etc. It's a pure example of Democrats (who have always relied on the votes of dead people, fictional characters, etc., and would love to have illegal aliens vote) trying to manufacture an issue where none exists.

It's the Republicans who are doing that, since there isn't a problem with vote fraud now, according to all reports I have seen, and not from the left wing.

You said the black panthers were "evil." But were they? Their trouble with authority was mostly because they advocated their right to bear arms. The government didn't want them to have arms, so they killed them. I don't notice that the right to bear arms is something that conservatives disparage too much. They watched the cops to make sure they treated people in their community fairly. For their trouble, they were often arrested on trumped-up charges. They got into a few shootouts with police. In this they were no different than the rebels at Waco and Ruby Ridge, which conservatives often defend against the government. They organized their communities and provided services that the white people refused to provide them. They registered people to vote. They talked revolution. I'm not sure what other "evil" you are talkin' 'bout.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Leftist: "Human beings can fly! I promise you! If you don't believe me, you're a coward/racist/moron!"

Leftist: "Negroes are of equal worth as Whites! I promise you! If you don't believe me, you're a racist/white supremacist!"

Rightist: "Poor folks are lesser worth than rich folks!! I promise you! If you don't believe me, you're a communist/socialist!"

These examples illustrate the nature of the divide illustrated by JPT's post. The first part of states what is a self-evident fact to the speaker, and then follows with a derogatory label to one who would disagree. The derogatory label is justified in the speakers minds because its target is denying reality, as if they were claiming human beings can fly.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Leftist: "Negroes are of equal worth as Whites! I promise you! If you don't believe me, you're a racist/white supremacist!"

Rightist: "Poor folks are lesser worth than rich folks!! I promise you! If you don't believe me, you're a communist/socialist!"

These examples illustrate the nature of the divide illustrated by JPT's post. The first part of states what is a self-evident fact to the speaker, and then follows with a derogatory label to one who would disagree. The derogatory label is justified in the speakers minds because its target is denying reality, as if they were claiming human beings can fly.

At this point, I am lost. Neither BB's nor JPT's characterization of the "other side" seems rational to me.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

At this point, I am lost. Neither BB's nor JPT's characterization of the "other side" seems rational to me.

Don't consider what I'm saying a general characterization of the "other side". JPT will paint all Boomers with a broad brush, a highly inaccurate broad brush. He focuses on a vile stereotype. I don't recognize myself as having the values he attributes to all Boomers.

My recent posts reflect my values, values reasonably common among Blue folk, but are specific to JPT on the flip side. Not all conservatives come from the same place as JPT. I consider him to be an odd duck.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Leftist: "Negroes are of equal worth as Whites! I promise you! If you don't believe me, you're a racist/white supremacist!"

Rightist: "Poor folks are lesser worth than rich folks!! I promise you! If you don't believe me, you're a communist/socialist!"

These examples illustrate the nature of the divide illustrated by JPT's post. The first part of states what is a self-evident fact to the speaker, and then follows with a derogatory label to one who would disagree. The derogatory label is justified in the speakers minds because its target is denying reality, as if they were claiming human beings can fly.

You completely failed to understand what I was saying. My imaginary statement was illustrating the left wing attitude towards foreign policy, and the threat of radical Islam specifically. Your response has nothing to do with what I was referring to. If I was going to expand it, I'd add environmentalism, open borders and so forth. Policy positions that damage other people, and are based on ideological dogma, not practical reality.

Your post does refer me to a thought I've had recently, though. A prediction. Something I see happening. That is, the tolerance for white people calling other white people racists is going to end.

Everyone posting in this thread is a preening, bloated, self-indulgent fucktard. Wait, God damn it!

Originally Posted by B Butler

I don't recognize myself as having the values he attributes to all Boomers.

Then don't take it so personally that you have to call him a bigot in return. Sheesh.
There's lots of stuff said about Xers on this forum that I don't recognize in myself. So what? People have a right to their opinions.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Then don't take it so personally that you have to call him a bigot in return. Sheesh.
There's lots of stuff said about Xers on this forum that I don't recognize in myself. So what? People have a right to their opinions.

Just watch his stances when the issues of gender equality and racial equality come up. He isn't the classic 1950s sort of bigot who will throw the n-word around. Still, he uses the b-word (Boomer) with much the same hatred, prejudice and tone. He really does reject everything the Boomers stand for, including gender and racial equality.

I'm tempted to throw a lot of Xer stereotypes at you just to see if you'll respond, but I've seen you respond often enough that the experiment is unnecessary. If I called you stupid, and claimed that you don't care, would you throw a hissy fit? How much evidence would I have to provide to prove my claim?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Just watch his stances when the issues of gender equality and racial equality come up. He isn't the classic 1950s sort of bigot who will throw the n-word around. Still, he uses the b-word (Boomer) with much the same hatred, prejudice and tone. He really does reject everything the Boomers stand for, including gender and racial equality.

I'm tempted to throw a lot of Xer stereotypes at you just to see if you'll respond, but I've seen you respond often enough that the experiment is unnecessary. If I called you stupid, and claimed that you don't care, would you throw a hissy fit? How much evidence would I have to provide to prove my claim?

If you want to accuse JPT of generational bigotry, that's probably fair. Racial/gender bigotry? Not so much. If you'd like to quote a post of his that shows otherwise, I'll be glad to take that back.
Wtf are you talking about in that second paragraph?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Wtf are you talking about in that second paragraph?

If you're too stupid to figure it out, I don't care.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Don't consider what I'm saying a general characterization of the "other side". JPT will paint all Boomers with a broad brush, a highly inaccurate broad brush. He focuses on a vile stereotype. I don't recognize myself as having the values he attributes to all Boomers.

My recent posts reflect my values, values reasonably common among Blue folk, but are specific to JPT on the flip side. Not all conservatives come from the same place as JPT. I consider him to be an odd duck.

lol
Quack quack! If it talks like a duck, you know; maybe???

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Everyone posting in this thread is a preening, bloated, self-indulgent fucktard. Wait, God damn it!

It's good to understand oneself.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You completely failed to understand what I was saying. My imaginary statement was illustrating the left wing attitude towards foreign policy, and the threat of radical Islam specifically. Your response has nothing to do with what I was referring to. If I was going to expand it, I'd add environmentalism, open borders and so forth. Policy positions that damage other people, and are based on ideological dogma, not practical reality.

In the last 4T, we denied access to European Jews escaping Nazi persecution, and detained Americans of Japanese ancestry lest they become a fifth column. Do those fall inside your view of prudence, or is 20/20 hindsight adequately embarrassing to make these two exceptions? Personally, I use them as guides, but YMMV.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

Your post does refer me to a thought I've had recently, though. A prediction. Something I see happening. That is, the tolerance for white people calling other white people racists is going to end.

It may raise the benchmark a bit, since groups like BLM have degraded the term pretty severely. Don't count on a permanent shift, though.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You completely failed to understand what I was saying. My imaginary statement was illustrating the left wing attitude towards foreign policy, and the threat of radical Islam specifically. Your response has nothing to do with what I was referring to. If I was going to expand it, I'd add environmentalism, open borders and so forth. Policy positions that damage other people, and are based on ideological dogma, not practical reality.

What is a "left-wing foreign policy"? Is the Right more effective, or does it simply do more bluster and seek wars for profit?

I'm very liberal, and I see nothing wrong with Reagan on Grenada or the elder Bush with either Panama or Iraq. Never expect any Great Power to show any tolerance of threats to the safety of its people. The elder Bush saw an aggressive regime in Iraq not easily defined as left-wing or right-wing invading Kuwait as an apparent prelude to further invasions intent on establishing Iraq as a Great Power. So did Mikhail Gorbachev.

President Obama prefers to strike enemies of the United States -- enemies that have done horrible things to America and innocent people -- with lethal surprise. It may be far easier to kill a terrorist kingpin, a leader of a thug insurgency, or some killer of Americans if that brute has no idea of when or where the strike will happen. It's not quite a mailed fist in a velvet glove -- but close enough in effectiveness. If anyone complains he says something like "We expect you to do much the same if the circumstances should arise".

He doesn't need to bluster.

A prediction. Something I see happening. That is, the tolerance for white people calling other white people racists is going to end.

We can be careful to avoid using the word 'racist' about people who simply disapprove of our agendas. People who attribute inferiority of intellectual capacity or moral conduct to others because of genetic factors related especially to skin color are racists. People who oppose interracial marriage on principle are racists. Members of hate groups are racists. Indeed, Nazi-style antisemitism is racist because it attributes gross immorality to Jews on genetic grounds.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Well, in the 1970's , under the rubric of Free Love, some Boomers and Silents really did do stuff like that. I can recall spouse swapping, parents flinging with random strangers , group sex, etc. IOW, JPT isn't making that shit up. I recall class mates discussing such events happening at their houses. For my cohort group, it was mostly Silents. Oh, and I had an interesting time when I found my dad's Playboy stash. Dad took me on a business trip when I was 14 and we shared a whole bottle of wine at a Red Lobster in Fort Collins CO. I just wonder what Millies think about a 14 year old getting smashed with dad. Mom's dad (maternal grandpa) also joined the booze thingie. At the Wichita Mountains, I just innocently asked him what his Coors tasted like. He said, "here, have one". Here's some more blast from the past 1970's stuff.
1. It was just fine if I dipped tobacco in school and had my Skoal can on my desk in full view of any teacher.
2. The high school had a smoking pit where students could smoke.
3. I got away with being blasted on booze/drugs because I had a 3.75 grade point average. The classes I took weren't the blow kind. I had Chem I, Chem II, math up to Pre Calculus, earth science, etc. Since the school system got money based on academic performance, hey, it's OK if Rags was a penultimate stoner.

Cowboyin' Up, SF burbs version ... got to have the obligatory ring shaped fade mark in the rear pockets due to ongoing presence of tobacky cans. Pwit!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If S&H were right, and if some kind of massive war is inevitable, it is absolutely clear that it will be Islamic terrorism that will be the cause. The only question is when it will ignite a full conflict, and whether it will result in yet another western occupation and re-shaping of the Middle East, or the collapse and destruction of Europe and the United States, and a new dark age for the 21st century.

I'm not convinced S&H's predictions about the future were accurate, though. They were certainly pretty far off about Millenials, unless they undergo a major transformation in their thinking.

How can you be absolutely clear that some non state actors with AKs and home made bombs will be a total war axis?

Yep, they've got them satellites, hypersonic craft, ECM, MIRVed nukes ... oh wait ... they don't.

But ... who does?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If S&H were right, and if some kind of massive war is inevitable, it is absolutely clear that it will be Islamic terrorism that will be the cause. The only question is when it will ignite a full conflict, and whether it will result in yet another western occupation and re-shaping of the Middle East, or the collapse and destruction of Europe and the United States, and a new dark age for the 21st century.

I don't think S&H had every crisis featuring a massive war. I vaguely recall their acknowledging that Queen Victoria and Bismarck, though at heart conservatives, put through enough more or less progressive reforms to make sure Marx's predictions of a Revolution didn't happen on their watch. If that isn't pure S&H, I think it's an idea that has been shared frequently on these forums. The generation constellation tends to be set up for a transforming struggle every four score and seven years, but if the conservative resistance to change isn't very strong, sometimes a massive conflict doesn't develop. It is in the conservatives interest to give enough ground that the spiral of violence doesn't go critical, but much of the time the conservatives cling to their pasts firmly enough that things do explode. Not always, but a lot.

I'm also into Ages of Civilization: Hunter Gatherer, Agricultural Empire, Industrial Democracy and... Information Age? It is my thought that computer networks, weapons of mass destruction and renewable energy will change the shape of human culture just as much as the printing press, gunpowder weapons and steam engines. War seemed cost effective during the bulk of the Industrial Age. Great Powers played The Great Game. That was what they did. Whenever a Great Power's economy was running along well enough that they could afford it, there was always one nation that was ready to take on others head on brute force.

Nuclear weapons could very well change that. The recent conflicts feature proxy war, insurgent tactics and failed states. While during the Industrial Age the major powers seemed to have a tacit agreement not to arm the natives in anyone's colonies, these days it seems every terrorist and his brother can find a nation state that will ship him assault rifles and explosives to support their cause. Colonial Imperialism is much more difficult to implement these days. I am not sure that the lessons learned from the Industrial Age can be applied, that the patterns of the last several centuries can be counted on.

Meanwhile, every culture that tries to grow out of the Agricultural Age pattern has had major problems in transition. The United States, Great Britain, Russia, France, China and many other places had Revolutions, Civil Wars and / or meddling Colonial Imperialists. The first attempt of any culture to escape autocratic tyranny is apt to be a very painful failure. I wouldn't expect the modern Middle Eastern countries to be any different.

They might be worse off in that many western countries had a vision of a better future they were working towards, whether they followed Jefferson's Enlightenment pattern or Marx's communism, they knew they were leaving the old tyranny behind to embrace something new. Many in the Middle East -- the militants causing much of the trouble at least -- have rejected Western values and cling to Islam. They stick to the autocratic old way of doing things by culture and habit. They know their society has big problems, but many are not fighting to break the old patterns, but are clinging to tyranny and violence. They've got a problem, and I'm not sure we're in a good place to help them out of it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not convinced S&H's predictions about the future were accurate, though. They were certainly pretty far off about Millenials, unless they undergo a major transformation in their thinking.

Yes. The Great Depression of the GI's was nothing at all like the very protective 'Baby on Board' period. My parents were put to work as soon as they were old enough to do so, and the vast bulk of their salaries went into the family's common kitty. They didn't get control of their paychecks until they married. My father wasn't driven to organized activities. He'd grab a few dimes and ride the streetcars that could take him anywhere in Greater Boston. I like the Millenials I bump into, but they aren't the Greatest Generation, they aren't ready to roll up their sleeves with little to no provocation and wipe out any problem that comes to their notice. Further, the Boomers are divided and squabbling. The Millenials do seem to have some Civic ability to network and get things done, but they haven't got an FDR or a vision to get them all heading in the same direction at the same time. The GIs were rough, ready and willing. The Millenials are... good people.

There are some common Civic traits that might be shared between the GIs and the Millenials, but there are certainly differences.

Ah, the Whiggish view of history! All the peoples, cultures, and ideas throughout history all served the sole purpose of leading to you, and your vision of the future!