Posted by anon on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:40 | #

huh?
are you sure its their fault?  in what way?

That would be my granddads generation, and his generation is certainly not impressed with the changes that have taken place and are usually the most conservative of voters.
Compare that to the radical leftist liberal ‘boomer’ generation…

Who made more of the changes??

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:17 | #

An alcoholic is not impressed with the changes that result from his alcoholism, but that doesn’t mean he can absolve himself.  In this case, the “night before” involved changes that happened on their watch such as the take over of television by Jews invading the upbringing of the boomers, the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Immigration and Nationalities Act of 1965, Vatican II, etc. ad nauseum.

In any case, I did say:  Truly, the worst generation, if we are keeping score by generation—which we should not.

The problem, of course, is that there is a remnant of the GI generation impeding men like myself from fixing the problems created on their watch because they are too busy relaying to each other Jewish propaganda about how great they are and how “spoiled” the boomers are.  It would truly be better if they simply took heroin.

In addition to ignoring, for ego sake, the fact that their wealth is largely based on real estate appreciation 2 or 3 decades ago acquired by filling the dumpsters behind abortion clinics with the rotting fetuses of the grandchildren they’d never see, marriages broken and children never even conceived because of economic pressures on the boomers after being shoved into the big cities, there is the current problem created by GI generation vanity being appealed to by neocons who continually play the “Islamofascist” card comparing WW II Nazis to Islamics so that they beat the drums for foreign wars to prevent a supposedly imminent invasion.  They are told Lindbergh was wrong then and hence Ron Paul is wrong today.  They cannot let anyone argue for nonintervention lest it expose their entire ego structure as not only vain, but profoundly destructive to thousands of years of heritage.  If their great grandchildren don’t go off and die for Jews because that generation sees through the war propaganda, then what in the world are they going to think about “America First”, Lindbergh on their deathbeds?  They MUST condemn their “cowardly” great grandsons—if they have any at all, after what they let Jews do to our people over the last generations.

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:59 | #

In fairness to the GI generation, if I recall correctly, they are still the most racially conscious of all Americans. It’s also worth noting that there was a vigorous opposition in the American South to forced integration and social equality between the races.

That said, the decisive turning point in American racial attitudes occurred between 1938 and 1945. For the first time in American history, the majority of whites came to believe in racial equality during those years. It was all downhill from there.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:56 | #

they are still the most racially conscious of all Americans

No they aren’t.  The most racially conscious of all Americans are the young white men who had to grow up in integrated schools with minority “youths” who reached puberty and slapped on muscle mass at least a year or two ahead of them—or perhaps we should discuss some of the young white men who have been turned out by black and Hispanic gangs in prison while the government’s prison guards smirked and Hollywood made motion pictures like “Pulp Fiction”, “American History X”, “Oz”, etc. portraying white men —preferably white “supremacists”—as prisoner rapists.

Posted by John on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:01 | #

The GI generation was thoroughly and over a long period shock and awe psyoped just like the current one. The “blowback” (if you want to be gratuitously generous in the latter generation’s case) was not only expected but intended. Nurtured even.

Posted by Voice on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:33 | #

You nailed that one James Bowery.  Saving it for future reference..

Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:52 | #

Bravo.

Excellent article.

Posted by anon on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:13 | #

You write as if that generation welcomed the changes but in reality many of them fought tooth and nail against them.

I must disagree with what you say about marriage and abortion, the G.I generations marriages lasted a lot longer than the subsequent generations and they were opposed to abortion. They mainly only legalised it at first because so many women were getting injuryed in backstreet abortions that they wanted to regulate it, not because they agreed with it.

The changes to the western world have more to do with technology than political idealogy. Cars and planes made transport easy, advances in the medical field made abortion and contraception easy and the people became so wealthy compared to others around the world that they didn’t mind sharing. If it had been a struggle to get by day to day there would have been much more resistance.

I don’t think the young are as ‘aware’ as you say, yes people are against the forced school integration but due to white flight thats not as big as it would have otherwise been.
And how many people are aware of the large scale prison turning out?  not many.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:52 | #

In 1910, before the birth of the GI generation, the foreign born in the US, the majority from non-traditional sources, almost reached 15%. Currently it’s about 12%. As Grant wrote, Polish Jews were already pushing old stock Americans off the streets of New York. The deed was done while the GI generation were still in nappies..

A commenter on an earlier thread quoted Margaret Sanger;

“Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots” (“The Need of Birth Control in America,” in Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities, edited by Adolf Meyer, 11-49 [Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Co., 1925]).

“I, for one, believe that it is high time to recognize that if it is not right to import into our country individuals from whom we must later protect ourselves, it is even more imperative to protect ourselves and to protect American society today and tomorrow from the procreation of such individuals within our gates” (Ibid., p. 27-28).

To what race was she referring? Which race was it that showed indifference to their “racial” responsibilities? Which race was it, whose birthrates were in such decline?

As Darwin suggested out group sympathy will ripple out from family, to tribe, to nation and then to men of other nations and finally men of other races. There is only one tribe that has resisted the inevitable evolutionary trend.

Posted by Proofreader on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:55 | #

No doubt the GI Generation- or rather part of it- fell for Roosevelt-style imperialism and liberalism. After all they went on to vote eventually for the likes of Kennedy and Johnson.

But weren´t the Boomers also responsible for furthering those policies? First as hippies, then as yuppies. And finally they took on as politicos, lecturers and policy makers in the 80´s.

Can´t we say that the Boomers were part victims and part enforcers of the regime? The infamous Clintons are living proof of the latter.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:31 | #

anon writes: I must disagree with what you say about marriage and abortion, the G.I generations marriages lasted a lot longer than the subsequent generations and they were opposed to abortion.

I was referring to the boomer marriages and failed reproduction, not to the GIs, that resulted in the demographic vacuum that immigration advocates claim should be filled by more fecund foreigners.  To repeat my thesis:  This demographic collapse has been blamed on the boomers themselves—their “overconsumption” and whatnot—and much of this blame-game has been perpetuated by members of the GI generation so as to quell the painful realization of their failure to pass on to the boomers the legacy to which they were heir.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:04 | #

Proofreader writes: Can´t we say that the Boomers were part victims and part enforcers of the regime? The infamous Clintons are living proof of the latter.

Absolutely—and in particular “boomers” born before 1950, like Clinton, Gore, Bush Jr. etc—got in on the real estate gravy-train.  By the time the mid boomers arrived on the scene, their demand had been discounted heavily by the run up of borrowing against future appreciation of real estate values, resulting in the very rarely talked about but vicious spike in mortgage interest rates within a year of the peak of mid-boomer demand.  See Decimation of the baby boomer generation for the graph.

The early boomers are really much worse than the GI generation—particularly the males who participated in the sexual exploitation of the surge in younger females—so it is perhaps understandable that there is some tendency to demonize all boomers among those unconscious of the catastrophic consequences of the real estate boom.

I think it is indicative of our malaise that the US Presidency went straight from the GI generation (Reagan and Bush Sr) to early boomers (Clinton and Bush Jr)—and that now, rather than getting any whites from the mid-boom we have a choice between a whole raft of early boomers and one mid boomer who was sired by an African man.  The only decent candidate of the lot is Ron Paul who is post-GI and pre-boomer but most mainstream political commentators consider him a mere gadfly.

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:44 | #

No they aren’t.

The data that I have seen suggests otherwise. The elderly are overrepresented amongst whites who still hold strong racial views. The youngest whites are the most egalitarian. That would make sense. Most Americans born after 1965 have never known anything else.

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:47 | #

Proofreader,

See Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:14 | #

Most Americans born after 1965 have never known anything else.

True, but what if they were given a real choice?  They’d flock to it the way other nations flocked to the US after 1965.

Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:51 | #

I’m not disputing that. The problem is that they are socialized into being anti-racists by almost every aspect of their environment: the mainstream media, the public schools, the universities, the work place, family, friends, colleagues, the churches, etc. Then you have the disciplinary institutions which maintain the status quo.

It’s no mystery why most Americans give lip service to anti-racism. Humans are social creatures who exist in networks of dominance and submission. The more interesting question is why anyone would become a racialist.

How do we give our contemporaries the choice that you propose? At the very least, as the Watson case so painfully illustrates, they need to be reassured that they can count on the support of others when they stick their necks out and voice their true racial opinions.

Posted by ANON on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:40 | #

The “WORST GENERATION” they went along with the program of the Jewish groups and media masters, they embraced it. The results are all around you.
http://heretical.com/miscellx/culturec.html

Posted by Proofreader on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:56 | #

Scimitar,

I´ve read that the GI generation agreed overwhelmingly with Jim Crow in their youth. It´s the USA they had grown up in anyway. When were they won over by the anti-Jim Crow movement? In the late 50´s or early 60´s?

Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:17 | #

Proofreader,

It seems that lots of them were never won over by it. We know from scientific polling that about 10% of white Americans still hold strong racialist views. From what I gather, elderly Southerners are highly overrepresented amongst this group.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:23 | #

A better name for them might be “The Duped Generation”:  duped into fighting World War II, then duped into acquiescing in the unprecedented civilizational cataclysm that came after.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:14 | #

It don’t seem to mean much now. “Bobby” Jindal was elected the first coloured Governor of Lousiana since Reconsruction. Apparently, he even won the majority of the the vote in northern La., David Duke country.

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:09 | #

This is related to the disastrous mismanagement by Blanco during Hurricane Katrina back in 2005.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:25 | #

Scim, not to quibble but wasn’t the cause of the Katrina disaster neither Katrina nor Governor Blanco but the Negroes populating New Orleans in excessive proportions?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:29 | #

Isn’t blaming the Katrina disaster on Gov. Blanco like blaming poorly-performing “inner-city” schools (for non-Americans, “inner-city” is a euphemism for “Negro”) on “poor teaching”?

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:33 | #

Blanco defeated Jindal a few years ago to become Governor of Louisiana. Her mismanagement of the Katrina crisis sunk her popularity there. It’s my understanding that is why she didn’t run for re-election. The hurricane also drove out a lot of black voters from the New Orleans area. It’s no real surprise that the Republicans won.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:19 | #

If Jindal had retained his ancestral Hindu faith, I seriously doubt whether he’d have succeeded in being elected dog-catcher anywhere in Louisiana. Christianity, that indispensable White cultural artefact, was this Subcon’s ‘open sesame’ to power.

Posted by torgrim on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:52 | #

Al Ross;
“Christianity, that indispensable White cultural artefact, was this Subcon’s ‘open sesame’ to power.”

The old Media is just ecstatic with glee, imagine, a non-white in power in the South..

This White cultural artefact is seen in Catholic Churches with the pews filled with Mestizos and American-Irish, in Mexifornia, anyway..

Posted by Amalek on Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:01 | #

The so-called Greatest Generation of Depression-disciplined, segregated then conscripted self-deniers proceeded to indulge their kids Spockishly and raise libertines, draft dodgers, cultural relativists, marxoids, race-mixers and so forth: Boomers.

That is a powerful refutation of the idea that children are environmentally influenced to develop above all in the image of their parents, reinforced by societal norms in loco parentis.

Judith Rich Harris, thou art vindicated!

More than that, the divagation casts doubt on the whole blank-slate schmear. We are always told that the 1940s and 1950s were times of dreary regimentation, conformity and so forth; yet out of that soon came hippiedom and the creeping dystopia of the “individual” and his “rights”. Nor has there been any subsequent backlash towards social conservatism, which remains on the defensive 40-50 years after “permissiveness” began to trickle down from the elite to the masses.

There is no pendulum swing, and explanations for self-destructive trends cannot be found in the “cultural” wafflings of moralists or in the impact of policies and economic tweakings: so beloved of soi-disant conservatives, particularly politicians and suchlike cowards, who dare not go beyond peddling placebos to palliate symptoms.

They will not face the longer term realities of evolutionary biology. It steers our collective existence in directions we barely dream of and not necessarily to our advantage. Only if we try to fathom the limits of what we can course-correct in our largely pre-ordained genetic destiny do we have a hope of salvaging the best of our traditional civilisation. If, like the blank slaters, we suppose an act of will places our fate solely in our own hands, “we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:00 | #

.
.
Excellent post and comments here, Jim

My parents were all of that - asleep at he wheel - as GI generationers; my older siblings, though not exactly of that first crest, were close enough for their purposes culturally and born well ahead of me (a first crest baby buster). I witnessed the kinds of things taken for granted, the social denial in them, of which you speak.

I think the alcoholic metaphor is particularly apt, as “familial denial” seemed to play a significant role in their lack of social conscientiousness.