Zodiac Sign of the Boomer: Metastasizing Cancer.
That may seem a bit cruel a “zodiac sign” given the blame that boomers have unfairly sustained for political initiatives taken in a time prior to their coming of age and prior to ready availability of critical information by way of the internet.
However, just as some exoneration can be made for the boomers on assessment of their generational pattern and its contexting, as opposed to the arbitrary hokum that Jim Goad would derisively refer to as “generational astrology”, viz. astrological type categorizations arbitrarily wielded in popular meme culture by younger generations to distinguish generational differences, so too there are, by accurate contrast, observable patterns which provide legitimate working hypotheses that criticism of the boomers is valid and deserved.
A pattern is something like a cog; the spokes of which are instantiated intermittently and take hold to kick in as a full system after a few more cogs are strong enough in their difference and grip to spin the cog to a paradigmatic shift from the last pattern. We’ll be setting out a few of the turning points as we go on.
Though not exclusively, the generational demographic we are talking largely about is American boomers – their having emerged post WWII as the most powerful, influential and lucky group of Whites; hence our concern for their influence especially.
It is a completely legitimate hypothesis to observe that theirs was a generation that reaped the benefit of the Post World War II economic boom and the moral high ground for victory over Nazism; we may surmise that they were typically satisfied with a clear means to get theirs and took for granted that the American system, apparent bastion of democracy, must be generally on self corrective track to a better, more fair world – it certainly worked for many of them if they managed to avoid the flies in this ointment, such as being destroyed by the Vietnam war.
As the boomers come from the luck of their position, taking the conservation of much social capital for granted and having been at their disposal, they have tended to see the social problems around them emerging not as having part to do with exploits taken advantage of by antagonists, viz., in their liberal and right wing oversights, but as a result of their liberal/right wingishness not having been enforced hard enough, and so they double down, especially if they are coming of a STEM predilection – which has given them an advantage and a head start in many ways, including in the internet (in case of STEMers); while it also gives them a natural aversion and inability to understand the manichean gamesmanship of red caping the humanities, post modernity, social constructionism, hermeneutics, etc; and thus misled by the misrepresentations (for the sake of blocking our social organization/corrective homeostasis), they instead funnel their epistemological blunder directly into the internet bubbles of generation millennial, making them “instant experts” against “the left” and all that “social stuff” – “expertise” with no need of protracted experiential knowledge, but rather buffered from reality testing in the correspondence to their internet bubble are the millennials fed through the umbilical chord from boomer liberalism/right wingism – bypassing and belligerently averse to the would-be social correctives of generation Xers, if a rare Xer bird actually understands this stuff and presents it correctly.
However, as the Boomers are flattered and pandered to in their reaction to YKW abuses of left, post modern concepts, etc, and with a heavy YKW marketing campaign to encourage their right wing identity against “the left”, they bypass the social systemic, homeostatic corrective of GenX and their liberal/right wing cancer metastasizes through the Millennials.
I had an obnoxious experience of this kind just today in the chat of Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor, Sam Dickson and Mark Weber stream; in the chat a Millennial was lambasting me when I presented a corrective to the boomer takes (I was trying to explain their important misunderstanding of social constructionism). The spokes of the boomer generation have continued to entangle and hold down the Xers necessary White post modern social corrective, both through the hubris of the Boomers by encouragement of right wing identity, leveraged with a YKW marketing campaign, its association with “objective merit” irrespective of social indebtedness, as fostering that perspective serves YKW interests in their hegemony; and as it staves off “leftist” efforts, viz. the unionization of White left ethnonationalism which could challenge their hegemony.
However, as the Boomers are flattered and pandered to in their reaction to YKW abuses of left, post modern etc. concepts, and with a heavy YKW marketing campaign to encourage their right wing identity against “the left”, they bypass the social systemic, homeostatic corrective of GenX and their liberal/right wing cancer metastasizes through the Millennials.
If anyone knows anything about Metzger, they will know that outside of myself (and I gleaned the idea from Metzger, and the confidence to take that angle from Metzger, despite Guessedworker’s idiotic insistence that I identify as left as a result of indoctrination from Jewish university professors), nobody was more critical of the Right than Metzger when it came to racial advocacy.
Hence, that Goad would up and be inspired by Metzger to write an article “Why I Left The Left”, represents a gross misreading of the importance of Metzger, his perspective.
In fact, Metzger would beseech his listeners, “Get out of the Right!”
Metzger’s wise perspective on the corrective world view in racial advocacy is very likely, explained in large part by his having Not been a Boomer, but born in1938, of “the Lost Generation”
I have spent years since the time I conversed with Metzger to correct and refine his position and take it further. In a word, objective right wing truth and fact quests are to function as feedback, while relative group interests are to function as calibration.
Metzger did have some residual and errant right wing positions: “might makes right” and “there’s no such thing as equality” – Goad was inspired by Metzger saying, “do you know anybody with power that wants equality?” But this is platitude, where Metzger is weakest, and it figures that that is what would inspire Goad. Vulgar fucking boomer Goad.
The whole “against equality” thing is a red cape that our enemies want us to take up because it makes us look bad, while providing very little information (and where are the “leftists” saying that they want equality? I may have heard one once, 30 years ago) – no such thing as equality? – amazing information and the stuff that assholes are prone to announce ….just as our enemies would want us to, to associate White advocacy with anti-social brutality, to frighten away adherence with a blithe proclamation of no accountability to social justice.
So, we are beginning to see the distinction between a boomer, Jim Goad, who was born in the early part of 1961 and an Xer, DanielS, born just a few months later, in September of 1961.
Goad has made it clear time and again that he is a stereotypical boomer individualist, balking at group organization as an affront to him, including White Nationalism. It figures that Greg Johnson, prone to infiltration by enemies or those who serve as their useful idiots would hire Goad as a feature writer at Counter-Currents.
In a recent article there, Goad is whisking out social constructionist texts; oh yeah, him and Greggy have been down with social constructionism all along, right with Jared Taylor, lol.
I mean, what did I tell you, they had some millennial imbecile lambasting me because they don’t understand social constructionism and insist on chasing its red caping. More on that later. I’ll post a short article that explains it concisely.
Why it is important to overcome the red-caping of social constructionism.
……………..
So here are Goad and second tier philosopher Greg Johnson trying to play catch up for their right wing perfidy. What has made these two identify as right wingers, as Boomers would, even though Johnson is probably well into the Xer age bracket?
Elitism, snobbery, an aspect of luck that makes them want to believe that they are self made men as much as possible, and to keep social accountability to a minimum, lest what luck that has served them be called to social account – that they are indebted to their people, past and subsequent generations.
Sibling Constellation and Orbit.
The logical force of my situation and family position largely explains why it is that I identify as an Xer even though I’m only a few months younger than Goad. Being on the cusp of two generations, I have a vivid perspective on what the Boomer perspective lacks and what is needed from the Xers.
In this article, I take a charitable attitude toward my parents harsh, World War II era pragmatism, but the truth is they were difficult enough. And it was a difficulty that made its way through my three older siblings (I was youngest).
My oldest brother Larry was born in 1953, went to Woodstock and never really came home after that. My sister Cara was born in 1955, a cunning and cutting feminist, who was adept in not putting this fact (of her feminism) at risk to criticism: her strategy was to trivialize, limit, humiliate and control males as best she could. Tom was born in 1957, and he would be an interminable bully, adding endless insults, he was THE most sarcastic person I have ever known, and if he ever gathered that you were gaining a bit of confidence and resource, would explode in loud mockery. Are there two more foul speech acts known to man than sarcasm and mockery?
Yet, that was the kind of thing that I was up against from my Boomer older siblings, alone, when I came along (a surprise, apparently) in September 1961, separated by four years from this boomer constellation spaced two years apart.
This separation and other factors created a logical force that put me into a different generation, which I would not have a name for nor much of handle on the difference of which, until literature started to be published around 1980, talking about the difficulties of “Generation X”
Before I start hearing criticism that I am nominating myself and a grievance story for a leadership role, that is not my point at all. What I am illustrating rather, is perspective on the distinction between generations and where these differing perspective becomes crucial as exemplified by their constellation members.
The biggest dividing lines between boomers and the Xer corrective is going to have to do with the good fortune of their boomer generation, the social capital they could take for granted. They were a bit more lucky than they would like to acknowledge and will have a tendency rather, to want to believe more purely in objective individual merit which falls in line with America’s most compelling story offered, of self actualization, while the Xer corrective, largely un-articulated, will invoke proper, White post modern group corrective (where it is true White post modern, i.e., not more modern universalism, in service, basically, of every other group). accountable to their social indebtedness, social justice, reconstructing social systemic group homeostasis, autonomy.
The boomer generation will not have experienced the effects of the anti-White social changes quite so overwhelmingly to their personal lives and will tend to mis-associate social correction of any kind, but basically to mis-associate social correction red caped, i.e., against Whites, as the problem, and they fall for this marketing campaign, against “the left”, sticking with the anti social right wing altercast that is promoted by Jews because it serves Jewish interests.
With this perspective, I can go on to provide more instances and examples of the generational differences.
While my brother Tom, in his boomerism, could retain defiant confidence in the crew-cutted heroes of the New York Yankees dynasty, with but a few amiable non-Whites playing alongside the still dominant, crew-cutted White heroes, Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford and Yogi Berra, the YKW and liberal media and courts were taking more and more shots at the purported objectivity and innocence of this White security.
But following the brutal militarism of World War II, America’s far ranging military involvement in Korea, the endless guilt trips being visited upon Whites for rigid and clear roles distinguishing race and gender during the civil rights and burgeoning feminist campaigns, popular sentiment was getting exhausted of the unnaturally inflexible role trajectories of tradition, particularly where it would grossly misallocate guilt and responsibility and head to a crisis, enlisting White men to be drafted into the Vietnam war, more or less out of traditional and habitual expectation of their role, not really in defense against a clear and immanent danger to their people, borders and bounds.
Because tradition. But really, does it have to be quite this way? Male call to military defense should generally be a matter of whether or not one’s people’s boundaries and borders are under siege. Securing resource, particularly when it is not absolutely vital, should exhaust means other than conscripted militarism. In the case of Vietnam, their nationalism may have been seen as a bulwark against Chinese and Russian incursions. Their nationalism fostered as such may have lent to amenable trade for rubber and other resource. But we digress.
For reasons, it took myself, an Xer with his nose pressed up against the window of the boomer manifestation of hippiedom, to articulate its essence and its profundity. Do you know others, even of their own generation to articulate their case (as opposed to having it co-opted and misrepresented by YKW liberalism – “civil rights” for blacks, a charitable attitude toward black power, feminism, opening the immigration gates for non-Whites, etc.)? You don’t, because I am the only one, having put together clues on the advice of Heidegger that we look upon our lives through a historical/hermeneutic perspective.
Next up in Generational Astrology, Part 2 and The Dark Side of Self Actualization…
While it is “the nice ones” that civic nationalist conservatives and especially liberals will focus on, regarding Jews, Muslims and blacks (duly noted Oreo or Uncle Tom), there is a bit of folk wisdom that keeps an eye on the pattern, i.e., the pattern in detriment to Whites/Europeans: “JUST WHAT WE NEED!” A ‘nice one’ to open the flood gates for the pattern.