Within American society, major national power now resides in the economic, the political, and the military domains. Other institutions seem off to the side of modern history, and, on occasion, duly subordinated to these. No family is as directly powerful in national affairs as any major corporation; no church is as directly powerful in the external biographies of young men in America today as the military establishment; no college is as powerful in the shaping of momentous events as the National Security Council. Religious, educational, and family institutions are not autonomous centers of national power; on the contrary, these decentralized areas are increasingly shaped by the big three…
Families and churches and schools adapt to modern life; governments and armies and corporations shape it; and, as they do so, they turn these lesser institutions into means for their ends. Religious institutions provide chaplains to the armed forces where they are used as a means of increasing the effectiveness of its morale to kill. Schools select and train men for their jobs in corporations and their specialized tasks in the armed forces. The extended family has, of course, long been broken up by the industrial revolution, and now the son and the father are removed from the family, by compulsion if need be, whenever the army of the state sends out the call. [Ed: This book was written in 1956.] And the symbols of all these lesser institutions are used to legitimate the power and the decisions of the big three.
…If the centralized state could not rely upon the inculcation of nationalist loyalties in public and private schools, its leaders would promptly seek to modify the decentralized educational system. If the bankruptcy rate among the top five hundred corporations were as high as the general divorce rate among the thirty-seven million married couples, there would be economic catastrophe on an international scale. If members of armies gave to them no more of their lives than do believers to the churches to which they belong, there would be a military crisis.
-C. Wright Mills [Emphases added]
The Power Elite (pp. 6-7)
Oxford University Press, Kindle Edition
The following spergout was inspired by a reflection on the divorce industrial complex:
My followup question is, what analogous economic mechanism caused the Boomers to act toward future generations the way thots act toward Betas in divorce court? If it’s such an easy thing to destroy the institution of marriage by incentivizing a military industrial divorce complex, then what exactly is it that Boomers are missing in their souls toward their children, and what disincentivized its natural growth? To phrase the question more concretely: If feminism was born to produce incentive structures which destroy marriages, what is the -ism that produced incentive structures to destroy parents’ natural affection toward their children? To get there, we need to know what the structures were.
I believe the key is that Boomer parents observably have similar attitudes to the foster parents of child protective services. As Jim describes it, “They are not hostile to children, but are alarmingly indifferent to their welfare.” State-sponsored caretakers don’t leave inheritances to their charges.
But cat ladies and Boomers have a major difference too, because Boomers act “gay” whereas cat ladies act like lesbians. That is, Boomers are high-libido hypocrites on cocaine whereas incentivized caretakers are high death drive hypercrites on SSRIs. I suspect this example of libido decoupling was driven by the improper use of incentives by well-meaning wamen, where extrinsic motivation drove out intrinsic motivation.
Behavioral scientists like Deci began discovering the Sawyer Effect nearly forty years ago, although they didn’t use that term. Instead, they referred to the counterintuitive consequences of extrinsic incentives as “the hidden costs of rewards.” That, in fact, was the title of the first book on the subject—a 1978 research volume that was edited by psychologists Mark Lepper and David Greene.
One of Lepper and Greene’s early studies (which they carried out with a third colleague, Robert Nisbett) has become a classic in the field and among the most cited articles in the motivation literature. The three researchers watched a classroom of preschoolers for several days and identified the children who chose to spend their “free play” time drawing. Then they fashioned an experiment to test the effect of rewarding an activity these children clearly enjoyed.
The researchers divided the children into three groups. The first was the “expected-award” group. They showed each of these children a “Good Player” certificate—adorned with a blue ribbon and featuring the child’s name—and asked if the child wanted to draw in order to receive the award. The second group was the “unexpected-award” group. Researchers asked these children simply if they wanted to draw. If they decided to, when the session ended, the researchers handed each child one of the “Good Player” certificates. The third group was the “no-award” group. Researchers asked these children if they wanted to draw, but neither promised them a certificate at the beginning nor gave them one at the end.
Two weeks later, back in the classroom, teachers set out paper and markers during the preschool’s free play period while the researchers secretly observed the students. Children previously in the “unexpected-award” and “no-award” groups drew just as much, and with the same relish, as they had before the experiment. But children in the first group—the ones who’d expected and then received an award—showed much less interest and spent much less time drawing. 2 The Sawyer Effect had taken hold. Even two weeks later, those alluring prizes—so common in classrooms and cubicles—had turned play into work.
To be clear, it wasn’t necessarily the rewards themselves that dampened the children’s interest. Remember: When children didn’t expect a reward, receiving one had little impact on their intrinsic motivation. Only contingent rewards—if you do this, then you’ll get that—had the negative effect. Why? “If-then” rewards require people to forfeit some of their autonomy. Like the gentlemen driving carriages for money instead of fun, they’re no longer fully controlling their lives. And that can spring a hole in the bottom of their motivational bucket, draining an activity of its enjoyment.
Lepper and Greene replicated these results in several subsequent experiments with children. As time went on, other researchers found similar results with adults. Over and over again, they discovered that extrinsic rewards—in particular, contingent, expected, “if-then” rewards—snuffed out the third drive.
Drive (pp. 35-37)
Penguin Publishing Group, Kindle Edition.
This is, in my opinion, the most important finding in psychology in the last fifty years.
So something that seems like a good idea intuitively for incentivizing parenthood, like tax breaks for having children, is actually counterproductive because it can drive out natural, intrinsic motivations. My suspicion is that there is something turbocharging Boomer status striving (extrinsic motivation) such that it drives out natural affections toward one’s children. In response we see an out-of-control generational hysteresis, going something like this:
I further suspect it could be explained in simple numbers as compared to the capacity of existing institutions to absorb them, a la mouse utopia. As Steve Sailer pointed out with regard to ski slopes, more people means elites are driven to practice greater elitism.
To keep fewer people from climbing San Gorgonio in summer, the Forest Service moved the trailhead back. When I climbed it first on July 4, 1971, the shortest way to the top was 16 miles and 3,750 feet of elevation gain. That took from 10am to 8pm of almost nonstop hiking.
Now, though to climb Mt. San Gorgonio is 21 miles and 4600 feet of gain. Why? The L.A. Times explained in 1989 that the government felt too many people were climbing the tallest mountain in Southern California, so they made it harder to make it more elitist…
…We respond to the pressures of a growing population by making life more elitist.
It’s interesting how the sensible arguments on both sides outlined in the Sports Illustrated article 54 years ago are kind of off-limits today because they touch on the sacred cause of immigration. The notion that immigration-driven population growth poses tradeoffs today is considered … HATE.
Southern California’s Lost Ski Mountain
So I think what happened is with so many kids around in 1960 and the adults mostly checked out, every Boomer understood at some level they had to distinguish themselves from the mass by chasing “exceptionalism”. By becoming a doctor, for example. But there were only so many hospitals. They responded to this limitation with an attitude of expansionism–make more hospitals–and this strategy paid off because for a single brilliant moment in time the economic ground was set just so.
In other words, status striving was a positive-sum game for a brief moment, and this is the environment for which Boomers are now adapted as a matter of selection pressure. But by the time Gen X came along, the assumption that new hidey holes for every new mouse could be created by massive expansionism was no longer plausible. It had already been pursued to diminishing returns. So if a Zoomer goes to a Boomer and says “Burger King is a dead end job, wat do” the Boomer says they should work their way through medical school and build their own hospital, because you could pull that sort of thing off in the world to which they adapted.
Thus, the Boomer’s central conceit is to insist “Go West, young man” when there is no more West to go to.
Within a few generations all such roles in all physical space available to the species are filled. At this time, the continuing high survival of many individuals to sexual and behavioural maturity culminates in the presence of many young adults capable of involvement in appropriate species-specific activities. However, there are few opportunities for fulfilling these potentialities. In seeking such fulfilment they compete for social role occupancy with the older established members of the community. This competition is so severe that it simultaneously leads to the nearly total breakdown of all normal behaviour by both the contestors and the established adults of both sexes. Normal social organization (i.e. ‘the establishment’) breaks down, it ‘dies’.
Young born during such social dissolution are rejected by their mothers and other adult associates.
-John B Calhoun
Death Squared: The Explosive Growth and Demise of a Mouse Population
THE RETURN OF THE DANKPOAST
I like that you asked a question I didn’t even think of, and then tied a bunch of ideas together in answering it.
“Look man, if you don’t like your credit cards getting cancelled just build your own world government… It worked for me!”
I don’t really hate boomers, but their opinion on anything is by default invalid.
Lookism users are Calhoun’s “beautiful ones”.
>Children previously in the “unexpected-award” and “no-award” groups drew just as much, and with the same relish, as they had before the experiment…
Sounds like a recipe for future übermenschen. Not rewarding anything is a good way to tickle out the natural inclinations of people, because rewards mostly produce opportunists(see e.g. the tech sector nowadays)
A real punk-rebel would smoke pot and slam heroin, today, pot is for normies and opiates is for normies. Better stay clean and praise Jesus (and do cbd to even quit sugar). *elitism increase or troo thaling*
“here is one millioin dollars to play videogames that you like so much everyday, show up at nine to five everyday.” now you don’t like videogames.
solution? stick to the classics no normie will ever give a shit about. or have no hobby at all, now you are really different!
There are two groups here, or maybe three, the intentionally difficult on purpose, the people that just do anything as an energy outlet, and the true thal autisté.
think about pensions, when a sape retires and says he is going to do his favorite hobby all day, one week later he hangs himself.
nothing really meant anything except for dishing and taking out abuse on others in the monkey pack. hobby is just stimuli that links you into a stimuli group increasing stimuli, maximization.
March 14, 2019 at 8:34 am
Sounds like a recipe for future übermenschen. Not rewarding anything is a good way to tickle out the natural inclinations of people, because rewards mostly produce opportunists(see e.g. the tech sector nowadays)”
The less capable you are today of doing a job the higher your chance of landing that job is because of affirmative action. The only way to do this society properly is to do consultant work because sapes have no intention of fixing society (it is fixed to them) and if you get in at ground level well…be jewish and siphon money into your offshore treestump.
Sympathy for the Boomer
im not feeling it. for me it still comes down to sapery, social engineering and itz limitations on teaching behavior to a monkey, and lets talk about prohibition ,1920 to 1933 (in swe effectively 1900-1950). sapes do not like good society, they are animals and want to be animals and will act out to destroy it. life was never better generally than in 1900-2000, unless you were 100% troo thal in 14 000bc, so… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3756368/Forget-age-plenty-happier-1700s-Briton-s-content-life-era-slums-gin-mothers-workhouses-today.html
the boomer status drive is the drive for no status at all, or rather a new car and no class all of this is classic r-mensch, shiny baubles going broke and then bumming for smokes from the other broke ass niggas. sapes have no shame, boomers are sapes. in borgonizing terms they are filed under sapes, in current year terms they are boomers, and again in edenistic terms they are utlra-sapes the final evolved ones. but still sapes gonna sape and the horrors they actively partake in can only be ascribed to their inner genetic workings, everything else is just obfuscation even if not intentionaly. their children do not have the same material wealth RIGHT NOW, but their intellectual freedumbs freedom is greater, this is why they turn into trannies and all this current year degenerate satanic shit and ooga boogery worship.
who has the best stimuli-dope sheeeeet on the block right now? same dude as always, the jew. this is why all sapes shop there. and again it is better than being eating alive. hell is full of sapes and all neanderthals denisovans and homo erectus were brought into the heavens. probably a true story. Nobody can make sapes believe in civilization nor society, the way a true whiteoid thal man sees it., never going to happen.
TLDR:good tree good apple bad tree bad apple. a line needs to be drawn because of logistics, save the good people and let the sapes sape.
great post btw
Please allow me to introduce myself
I’m a man of wealth and taste
I’ve been around for a long, long year
Stole all my kids’ 401ks
And I was ’round when Tricky Dick
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure the media
Wrung their hands and played his tapes
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around the Universities
When I saw it was a time for a change
Complained loudly about Vietnam
MacNamara screamed in vain
I spent daddy’s bank
Puffed a joint full of dank
When the Woodstock raged
And the bodies stank
All you kids do
Is just complain
All you kids doooo
Is just cooom-plain
perhaps world war 1 made people not care about basic care for chillums for 100 years, is the procastination over? all you need to do is to not show up, remember failing takes effort, winning takes no work at all.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8635881/school-stops-lgbt-teacher-muslim-parents-protest/ can’t be gay if you don’t go to school. “teaching” is a job and do you know who does not work? the neet.
can’t the neet be swayed into working by jiving him with NEETBUX, a la the experiments mentioned in this post? “how dare you pay me for not working im going to work for the globohomogayplex for free!!!”
to be continued but in the meantime this does look like anoter win for the treestump
>perhaps world war 1 made people not care about basic care for chillums for 100 years, is the procastination over?
Any day now.
>Lookism users are Calhoun’s “beautiful ones”.
Princesses of the valley of the uncanny.
Does the Boomer get all the girls in the end? Because that’s all that matters to me, them, and everyone else.
Endless immigration is the Boomers’ attempt to solve everyone’s problems the exact same way they solved them, i.e. the aforementioned “create a hole for every mouse”. Somewhere in their hindbrains they know that their lives are the result of a historic boom that can’t be recreated, but just like “free love, man”, that doesn’t mean they’re not going to topple over society trying! Which is funny, because they’re always so mad at Xers and MIllennials for not solving their own problems.
Boomers: they want nothing to do with either the problem or the solution. Unless of course they get some sort of credit for it. Or it makes a buck.
“Does the Boomer get all the girls in the end? Because that’s all that matters to me, them, and everyone else.”
I have a theory he raised his offspring to be fags, gen x z millenials whatever the fuck, scooping up all the wahmens with his hoarded wealth, like hugh heffner. this is the most degenrate generation that ever lived, whoever and whatever “fault” “reasons whatever”, they hare too dangerous to not have a hardline stance on the whole issues. to paraphrase africans; kill the boomer (before they take your gf and cut off your penis, never mind “the monetary inheritance”…)
boomer guidelines should be written out here is some basics; never cash out their mcmansion, if you see ooga boogas beating them on the street help the ooga boogas (hoist by own petard etc etc)
Pingback: Definition of Boomerism | Aeoli Pera
Pingback: AEOLI PERA BEST OF AND SERIES INDEX V 1.0 – True Ataraxia Radio