Monday, March 09, 2015

Get Used to Selma 50 Events, It's the Boomer Farewell Tour

The coverage for the 50th anniversary of the Selma march was pretty nauseating. "Yahhh, marchers crossed a bridge, got busted up by cops on national television and then days later, LBJ was pushing the Voting Rights Act." It passed, the New Left got rolling and everything is great for blacks now, right? Wrong. That was not up for discussion. Noticing that the black family has been destroyed by LBJ's Great Society amongst other forces is a crime with the punishment being you do not get published in big media. If this feels like a phony celebration for blacks, it is. It is not a celebration for them. It is a celebration for Baby Boomers. This is just one moment on the Baby Boomer farewell tour.

The Boomers, being born from the mid-'40s to the mid-'60s started retiring, if they could, around 2008. The Kennedy nostalgia was in effect for Obama's election as a chance to bring back Camelot as well as reignite those "we were on the good side of history" Civil Rights days. Since then, other events have had their 50th anniversaries to let Boomers reminisce and forget just how wrecked their nation is socially because of their actions. The Silent Generation does not get off scott free, but the Boomers relish in the '60s remember when television specials. For the '65 Selma March, Boomers were college kids, young adults or even kids, but they can all give you the I watched on the television those evil cops. It is a shared moment for them. They knew what was wrong, and thankfully, the government made it right. Now, fifty years later, they can feel satisfied in this memory as their elder generation (bigoted) parents are dead, and hey, a black guy is in the White House.

The Boomer farewell tour really kicked off with the '60s nostalgia partly behind the Obama push, but got in high gear with the weird Beach Boys Grammy's medley when "Good Vibrations" sounded like a funeral dirge. Since then we've had "50th Anniversary JFK", "50th Anniversary the Beatles Land", and so on. It is strange that Boomers and their Silent enablers did not have specials done up this weekend for the 50th Anniversary of Ground Troops in Vietnam. In their defense, the Boomers who are the tastemakers did not serve in Vietnam nor do they want to spotlight their despicable behavior. We cannot get them to admit they supported Pol Pot who only murdered a couple million.

This Boomer farewell tour will continue with made for tv special events like the "50th Anniversary of the Summer of Love", "50th Anniversary of the Chicago Democrat Convention Protests", "50th Anniversary of Woodstock", "50th Anniversary of Kent State", and of course the "50th Anniversary of Watergate". The Boomers will miss the comedy to their vanity with each special. When will it end? My guess is that it will end right at the 250th anniversary of July 4th in 2026 with the "50th Anniversary of Disco", but that will be to market a fashion or music trend and to throw younger Boomers a bone. One long shot to an end to it all would be the USA cracks up, breaks up, and a Governor of a secession republic uses Reagan's '80s election and Morning in America for nostalgia propaganda to the Reagan Democrats (really the Nixon coalition) that set off the '80s.

This truly is selfish and lame because the moment anyone even questions black advances or slides, the call will be "to finish the dream" or "to deliver on the promise" of those days. Scoff at this notion, but does Selma evoke more out of Demarkyus and La'Queneva or out of white Boomers Tom and Sally who left Oberlin and Columbia to be freedom riders and fall in love? Liberal Boomers do not want to be reminded that black "liberation" as they labeled it was the destruction of the black family unit. That destruction created the fertile ground for the crack wars of the '80s and superpredators that criminologists and academics warned everyone about in the early '90s. These back patting, self hugging events will be disgusting for those of us who live amongst the wreckage. We must keep all of this in mind when the bill comes due in the next 15 years for their utopian dreams that begat dystopian mornings.

18 comments:

PA said...

Great post, made my day reframing the tacky shit as Boomers' farewell tour.

eah said...

Without government employment -- eg in some agencies of the federal government, Blacks are hundreds of percent over-represented -- and affirmative action (also a huge factor in the government employment of Blacks of course) there would be no black middle class to speak of.

And yes it was and is nauseating -- all of it.

Anonymous said...

Well here's 5 minutes of my life I'm never getting back.

nikcrit said...

All contemporary commemoration grows tired to those living in that time and place.


The whole tepid drama and self-righteous aftermath may've never happened if only the police dogs, the fire houses and Bull Connor's countenance wasn't so pitch-perfect a caricature and stereotype of good-vs-evil.

Reap what you sow ----- now in 60" hi-def clarity!

PA said...

Yes, reap what you saw. That is, reap the Arkansas National Guard not firing at the 101st Airborne, sow Chris and Channon.

The reason Americans thought Bull Connor was a caricature of evil is because Walter Cronkite told them to think that way. When I look at those old photos I see serious men defending their people. But they lost, therefore I just saw a photo of a black teenage defendant who raped a 90-year-old white woman and poured bleach down her throat.

nikcrit said...

In deference to the endless b-w dichotomoy that MUST be served here and throughout the man-o-sphere, I will officially post notice that, yes, i fully disapprove of the murders of Chris and Channon Newsom and fully acknowledge the aggregate overrepresentation of blacks in the overview of black-vs-white homicide rates.
I don't equate brown-vs-board of education as license for senseless racial murders; you making that equation is, of course, within your will and right ------ but it's hard to then have a principled disagreement with blacks who endlessly exploit the 1963 black church bombing in Birmingham that killed three elementary-age girls with disagreement of black civil rights and any and all acts of white racism; in fact, i recall you railing on Obsidian repeatedly for citing those bombings....i do hate these b-vs-w historical tangents; i won't be put in the homely position of denying the disproportionate stagger of black crime. but i might expend a bit of rhetoric about white over-reach in their renouncement of 60s civil-rights and its quantitative and aesthetic legacies.

nikcrit said...

I have a creative dream:
Imagine fusing the story and controversey detailed in the following link, with a modern adaptation of 'Soylent Green.'
The absurdity has grown fantastical in that the college demonstrators protesting the slur-infested frat-house song are singing antebellum (their description) 'coon hollers' in tribute!

http://news.yahoo.com/ou-sae-fraternity-chef-loses-job-racist-chant-video-132448974.html

Suburban_elk said...

The whole tepid drama and self-righteous aftermath may've never happened if only the police dogs, the fire houses and Bull Connor's countenance wasn't so pitch-perfect a caricature and stereotype of good-vs-evil.

Reap what you sow ----- now in 60" hi-def clarity!


The whole charade of the multi-race coke commercial paradise is only possible in the alternate reality that post-modern people (such as contemporary Americans) inhabit, where their opinions about life and other people come from the flat screen.

The race conflict is just the reality, as long as the races in question exist. If white Americans exist, they are opposed to blacks and browns living in their space and going after their girls. If white Americans do not exist, well then they are not opposed.

What it means to exist is to struggle and fight, every day. Actually scratch that. That is what it used to mean. Now existence is something else because of technological culture. There is no need to make this point, again, but white Americans (and others) got soft.

Among white internet comic book culture, the idealized form for eugenic aspiration is something like Conan; but we are not living in the bronze age anymore; what would be his fate, were he to reappear.

I am repeating the point that the races are opposed - and once that realization is afloat, there is no putting it back in the bottle. The interests of blacks and whites are opposed. The existence of browns and mulattos does not alter that. Proponents of race-mixing say it is "evolution in action" and it is, but that is one strain against a much larger theme.

The debate continues and it will never be resolved because Life. As a white person i do not want to share neighborhood living space with blacks. And the stock response to that is "too bad for you" - which it is.

There is no looking out for the interests of the next generations without racial consciousness. And that high faluting eugenic-sounding grandiloquence is unavoidable and it is the real thing and legitimate, and talking about eugenics is talking about who is down at the park and who is on the bus, and who is at school, because that is where people are.

But this last paragraph, is what needs to be said at the school board meeting, in real life. Or rather, it needs to be that everyone knows it and so does not need to be said.

Suburban_elk said...

People were outside enjoying the weather yesterday, and at the park was a blonde girl with a black boy, youths, doing some couply posturing on the soccer field. High school kids and not too trashy. And to make this all personal, it's just like what the fuck. It's not ok. From the perspective of youth it is just a day in the park, right? but is that all there is?

The next level up, of organization, is directed evolution, aka eugenics. This is not a new idea. It is an old idea. Somehow we have decided that we are not up for the task because … stupid Americans and stupid people and who cares God is dead anyways and fuck this life.

It's no country for old men. I never saw that movie. But the title alone says a lot. The title alone indicates a certain yenahu-ish sensibility - such themes of eugenics and groups interest all come naturally to them, but to white people, they are obscure and esoteric.

nikcrit said...

The race conflict is just the reality, as long as the races in question exist. If white Americans exist, they are opposed to blacks and browns living in their space and going after their girls. If white Americans do not exist, well then they are not opposed.

I don't disagree with this. But I think the assessment is only partial in describing the effects from differing races and their proximity to each other.
Some in that mix want autonomy ----- which you tend to artfully capture but then declare universal; ok, but i say it isn't universal, at least phylogenetically, because the results of evolution over the millenium is what accounts for the differing races, period, etc. IOW: there is just as much a urge to conserve and maintain as there is an innate urge to expand and evolve (or devolve, case may be).
I also think you (and PA) at times reverse the arrows of causation when you proffer self-serving interpretations of who-wants-who re. 'our women.' I'll grant you that, in the infitestimal moment of our current epoch, black males and white females are the humans that are most qualitatively (subjectively) exalted sexually, via cultural mythology, folklore and ---- the current fusion of those two forces --- "The media;"but that in the grand scheme of things is fleeting and ultimately little more than a notable observation of 'current arrangements.'
I mean, look at the intra-white relations within the 20th-century alone: in 1900, a Sicilian male marrying a white female from Oslo would be considered wildly transgressive and radical an act; moreso today than would a white-hispanic marriage or perhaps even a white-black union. You tend to write off the effects of modern technology and the intercultural intimacies it propagates ---- but those are powerful forces, perhaps underacknowledged, because, by the very definition of 'innovative' they're historically unprecedented.
in short, b-w and b-h and w-h mixing is already a force that's leveled a secondary cultural level; for those composed of that change *yours truly among them), the core transcendence has already occurred ---- socially, genetically, etc.
And from there i'm merely saying it behooves one to acknowledge that anthropological fact before putting forth these monocultural doomsday scenarios which depict, say, hispanics "stealing our women," or vice-versa, etc.
There are many, most of the younger generation, who no longer feel "all white" or "all black" or "all hiSpanic" or whatever, so they don't feel the acts you describe are that biologically and genetically transgressive.
And I just want to be their mouthpiece; e.g., to have their views presented and acknowledged -----AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT!

nikcrit said...

I am repeating the point that the races are opposed - and once that realization is afloat, there is no putting it back in the bottle. The interests of blacks and whites are opposed. The existence of browns and mulattos does not alter that. Proponents of race-mixing say it is "evolution in action" and it is, but that is one strain against a much larger theme.

I sorta overlooked this graph, in which you neatly encapsulate the gist of our back-n-forth..... How could I convey the sentiment of: "I don't share the same sense of enmity, yet have no desire to curb or ebb yours. because I put forth my feeling not as a suggestion for a moral decree but just reflective of my formative experience?"
I don't mind being feared or even vilified; I just prefer the sentiment be in reaction to what I genuinely believe rather than some straw boogieman that I have nothing whatsoever to do with.

Suburban_elk said...

How could I convey the sentiment of: "I don't share the same sense of enmity, yet have no desire to curb or ebb yours. because I put forth my feeling not as a suggestion for a moral decree but just reflective of my formative experience?"
I don't mind being feared or even vilified; I just prefer the sentiment be in reaction to what I genuinely believe rather than some straw boogieman that I have nothing whatsoever to do with.


It is not about you.

The problems that are at issue are on the macro level; and yet these problems are only experienced on the individual level.

Ok, now that we know this is not about the internet characters nikcrit or Suburban_elk, or others.

But on the other hand: politics is personal, and the political is personal. Every single person with a political opinion is motivated by wanting things to be re-arranged more to their liking, more to their advantage. Some people are fuck-ups and some are not, but either way, anyone's political orientation is about their advantage. How their broad macro-level opinions, on say for instance questions of foreign policy, intersect with their own lives and personal interests, are sometimes not clear.

On the topic of race relations however, the macro-opinions are easily seen for what they are: expressions of the personal interests. If some internet poster says he doesn't want black guys going with white girls, inferences arise.

All of this is common sensical enough, and perhaps could go without saying, BUT - i think that the personal cost of all this is NOT acknowledged. The damage to people's lives. People suffer from this multi-race environment.

It is a competitive environment because life is competitive and there are winners and losers. The differentials in the current equation of the multi-race environment - who is going up and who is going down - are clear: whites are losing and others are winning. That is the broad pattern and no one can deny it.

AND that broad pattern plays out in a million livers.

One of the reasons that white people, American white people for instance (the only ones i know very well), are unable to advocate for themselves, is that the winners do not need group advocacy. Richard Branson and Harrison Ford do not care about these problems because they are too busy being awesome. Which is not to say that such uber-winners as they might not start to have concerns about the future of their children; but still the point remains.

So that is part of the motivation for wanting to get explicit and say, Ouch this hurts it causes me psychic pain and emotional distress, to see a young black male with a not too trashy white girl, at the park (when i should be with that).

Though this is an internet voice that means nothing to the author, it stands as sincere.

The current configuration, the multi-race environment that exists in this suburb and around this damned country, works in favor of blacks pursuing white women, and that is to the disadvantage of white males. And that pattern, that trend, has a huge HUGE effect on the development of these white males. People are beings in time, and if they lose, that is it. The pattern of white people losing, in this environment of the multi-race non-culture that is America, is what shapes the people who inhabit it.

nikcrit said...

Perhaps it's time to end this thread; though i appreciate your response. I'll just say that I don't get this sense of female ownership-vs.-freedom to choose, etc.

I mean, stand back for a minute and consider this statement alone, in and of itself:

The current configuration, the multi-race environment that exists in this suburb and around this damned country, works in favor of blacks pursuing white women, and that is to the disadvantage of white males.

I mean, that statement just reeks of wimpering insecurity; doesn't even sound like you or any other AR commenter i've bantered with ---- yet, in fact, I've heard you and others say something similar to that in more than a dozen instances.

How does the country do this? And most of all, why? Cultural taboos and transgressions arise and vanish in time for myriad reasons; do you wish for the days in which black men were l ynched for cavorting with white women?

Hahaha! (Be careful what you ask for, right?) Still, the relevant issue there is: would that returning taboo really alleviate your angst? No, it's the WF's inclinations ypu're really concerned about. IDK; this subject is always awkward; the AR's obsession with this issue simply says it all.

Suburban_elk said...

nikcrit - you missed the point entirely, which I repeat in summary form: The larger trends at issue, which are the race conflict and the living space and women that go with it, play out in the lives of individuals; and obversely such individuals use their own stories to make the larger points.

This is obvious (sort of), but you are unwilling to see the individual stories as reflective of the larger trends because the larger trends, which are whites losing ground and blacks and browns gaining, support the individual story of you and others like you, while they frustrate mine. (The larger trend of blacks gaining ground against whites shows up in individual black lives as victory, which they would take credit for as individuals.)

Instead of acknowledging how the larger trends of race conflict play out in individual lives, which was the explicit point of my post (and made clearly by the way) - you predictably insist on seeing the individual stories outside of the broader context.

You insist on pulling the stories from the context - when the context is the entire point.

I have repeated myself two or three times here, but i will not let you muddy the waters with your dense interpretation as the last word.

PA said...

When I was young I didn't give a crap about mudsharking. I am now married in my forties and with two sons, and I feel invested in their future, therefore I now "care" about mudsharking.

You don't even have to have kids to feel invested in your people's future. We GenX'ers are seeing the boomer generation off (faster please) and by virtue of age, we feel we now own our part on the stewardship. Stewardship of what?

Of what made us, and what will love on after we're dead and still look like us.

And LOLZ to Nikcrit asking the lynchie lynch thing. Like I give a fuck what happens to a man who gambled at taking my things and lost.

nikcrit said...

And LOLZ to Nikcrit asking the lynchie lynch thing. Like I give a fuck what happens to a man who gambled at taking my things and lost.

Hmmmm. And you accuse me of dodging the point at hand; well, speaking of, what of those women who willfully cross the line? Isn't that the real issue moreso than if the taboo is still punished or less prevalent?

Y'know most of the women i know personally and professionally ---- 20s to 50s ---- various races and blends, mainly centrist libs to GOPs with a few blue cuckoo Swipples in the assortment, would be as likely to more likely to date a hunking black or hispanic than someone who was necessarily white ----- and i'd say their actions pretty much reflect their words.
Which compels me to relay another anecdote, though i usually refrain from this kind of jousting --- but wtf, it's the weekend:
Few months ago SOBL ran a post about WW1, which prompted several comments re. different kinds of male ---- one pic in the post featured a white male lying prone outside with a rifle, to which you offered the remark that such a male figure, visage and ethnicity as his was 'Apex Male,' or some other comically homoerotic-seeming remark.
At the time i was reading this post, i happened to be in Chicago at a public-ed conference, with about a dozen colleagues from my district and many other acquaintances, bonded to us by similar jobs and previous acquaintances made at earlier conferences.
Anyhow, in a sort-of jovially mocking way, i pointed out that figure to some of my colleagues, who were familiar with me talking about this blog and joking with me about the irony of my being a regular contributor to it, etc.
Point i'm getting at is, these women were laughing their ass off at that 'apex male' assertion ---- some looking quizzical, some making mock gag-reflex gestures, etc. ------ and these women were many, idk, '7s or 8s; even a few '9s' among them. they were sightly, shapely and in a few cases very attractive women......So, i tell 'em it's this polish white dude i respect but who i've designated as sort of my ideological foil on this blog, and we regularly maintain a sort-of principled but contentious back and forth, which bring both casual challenges and rewards, etc.

In my town, poles are sort of a historially associated underdog; they're the one ethnic group in which it seems to be politically correct to discriminate against and disparage for ethnic reasons alone, as poles were the lowest white social and ethnic group historically in brewtown.

Point is, many of these white females would choose, quite reflexively, to date or fuck or 'hook-up' with or whatever the au courant licentious-seekign term might be with a black or hispanic male over a white polish male, for reasons petty and superficial or whatever ------ but that fact is sort-of ironic in the face of you making comments that take ownership of white females solely by the fact of you sharing their race (e.g., the 'whats yours' remark you made).

In any case, i don't fetishize white female flesh. But I don't think i'm any less 'entitled' to it then you or anyone else is; I feel kinship of any possible depth with people whose racial heritage i contain in my own body, or within those whom i don't.

And that is just a ho-hum truth of my formative experience, in no way a moral decree, challenge or kick in the head.

so, i'll consider your comment thee last word on this thred, elk; i just wanted to clarify how i felt i DID initially get your initial point.

nikcrit said...

Of what made us, and what will love on after we're dead and still look like us.


this is another puzzling difference between mixes and purebreds: to me, biracial kids can still easily look like both parents; i often see people of different races who look 'more alike' than do a given pair of the same race.
To me, that's obvious and mundane evident truth. But not here i guess.

gkruz said...

I am a late bloomer, born n the late 50s. I experienced JFK, Beatles, civil rights, as television events of my childhood. I agree with your post and am glad that you noted that the privileged boomers who run this endless 60s nostalgia tour were not the ones who fought in Vietnam, etc. The boomers the media lauds were never the majority or representative. In the 70s my high school pals looked like hippies and were into sex/drugs/rocknroll, but that is where it ended. We were blue collar and otherwise as conservative as out parents. The SDS, Jane Fonda, and Tim Leary didn't speak for us, and I am sure most of us would have went to Vietnam had the war not ended before our HS graduation, I know I would have.
So far be it from me to defend the spoiled, college brats who nearly sunk the ship of state in that era (many of whom were indeed red diaper brat from you know what demographic) and went on to grow up and subvert the system from within a la Ayres, Clinton, and Obongo.
But the other thing that always strikes me every time I see right wing millenials castigating lefty boomers on the internet is the sheer bizarro world aspect of it. Offline, most of my peers are conservative even reactionary, and all the millennials I know (and I know a lot) are raging SJWs, femmicommies, libtards and negrophiles. If it were not for the internet, I would think everyone under 30 was a hopeless race traitor mangina. So maybe there is hope yet, but there isn't much time.