Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Reasons to ignore millennials, and more

  • Five good reasons for advertisers to ignore millennials. In short, they're fickle kids who don't have a lot of money to spend. A couple of things struck me, the latter not related to my, on average, not liking millennials: these are still children (unlike '50s people their age, who were young ADULTS, they don't grow up until their 30s) and this country is declining (has been since the great cultural change I remember, since 1973: no rise in real wages), so their poverty (no spending money for advertisers, so advertisers can save money by ignoring them) is not entirely their fault. When they do grow up, a lot of the "generational differences" will disappear, like how boomers now consume luxuries like the WWII generation did when old, and how nobody talks about "Generation X" or "slackers" anymore, because that generation is no longer young/has finally grown up. Although you can partly blame our prosperity then and the paucity of real values, even then, for the unnatural prolongation of childhood starting in the '50s: the decade advertisers invented the teenager. Adolescence is real: literally children's minds in adult bodies (intense emotions, risk-taking); you don't get good judgment until you're in your 30s, which is why the president has to be at least 35. But in a better society, it really does "take a village." Extended family, real neighbors, and local employers who cared meant adults could actually BE adults, taking on responsibility (job, kids) with the community's help, as soon as their bodies said they were (prime time to have kids). High school and college were really school, not a social thing: lots of kids didn't finish high school but made good money in the trades, and college wasn't rich-kids party camp but for the 14% who were smart so they really belonged there. (Paul Fussell: only 14% REALLY go to college, the others being ripped off going to things calling themselves college.)
  • The geography of striver boomtowns, that is, future ghost towns.
  • A new favorite movie: The Big Town. Matt Dillon and Diane Lane, in the neon-glow, underworldy side of '57 Chicago.
  • Once in jeopardy, Wildwood's 1950s doo-wop buildings are now imitated.
  • Houston, we have a gender-blind public-restroom "problem." The idiocy behind the subpoenaing of church sermons. In other words, if a biological male claims he’s a woman and is forbidden to use the ladies’ bathroom at Starbucks to piss away his Pumpkin Spice Latte, it is a human-rights issue rather than a case of an annoying drama queen with nothing better to do.
  • The suicide of a great nation. Which I've been watching in slow motion since about 1973. Ebola and ISIS are symptoms of decline.
  • Cardinal Kasper giving away that he looks down on Africans. That threw me, because in America the lefty hierarchy of truths has anti-white at the top with anti-Christian a close second, so even the gays and and the girls get thrown under the bus (or blown up in Boston). Revealing. When rich white folks want to have some sexy fun, "bullshit walks." Also, the church in his Germany is tied to the state; if people officially quit being Catholic, it can't collect taxes from them anymore, so maybe he has a secular business model, trying to keep consumers from walking. The snotty liberal Anglicans really feel the same about the Third World.
  • Only an Anglican could get away with writing something which many Catholics must be thinking: Is Pope Francis a Catholic? Not much of one. Pope Francis nil; believing bishops 3. Here's hoping for another Pope Emeritus, soon.
  • Pat Buchanan: Pope Francis is hugely popular. But his worldly popularity has not come without cost to the church he leads and the truths he is sworn to uphold. Right. He didn't make the cover of Rolling Stone for doing his job, supporting the church's teachings.
  • Dissolution. The "Reformation" was evil. Below: the Pilgrimage of Grace as imagined by an artist.


  1. Seems to me that 1973 was pretty far in to the collapse, though it tracks conveniently with Roe v. Wade and the earliest sniffings of Watergate. At-will marriage was ramping up in the fifties. Contraception became commonplace in the early sixties. Malthusian environmentalists were stinking up the streets in '71. All the "cool kids" of the counterculture spent their time defiling the standards of their ancestors - as is inevitable for hard-core protestants. A society that hates both its antecedents and its progeny so thoroughly can't stand for long.

    1. The reactionaries are right that the rot had set in as far back as the '50s, BUT: I remember mid-century America riding off into the sunset as late as '68 to '72. (The years "Mad Men" now depicts.) Been chasing it since. That "cool kid" stuff (the media/pop-culture hippie "Sixties") existed but it WASN'T mainstream, it wasn't Middle America, and didn't become so until after '72 or '73. Also, in '71 President Nixon made our money purely fiat (I was shocked to learn that in college: worse than Watergate, which was just petty but understandable given Nixon's running against Kennedy 12 years earlier). I remember when Ed Sullivan was on TV, divorce was rare, and cohabitation looked down on even more than divorce. (I remember "The Brady Bunch" being on TV and the style change it copied.)

      By the way, since it's from the same period, homosexualism's history in modern America, based on my memory, is that the media, etc., went from not talking about homosexuality to, after Stonewall, desensitizing Middle America by loudly, bawdily acknowledging it, if only to make fun of it (because normal people DIDN'T accept it), to what we've had since around 1990 and what radicals have pushed all along, that it's a noble cause alongside black civil rights (which is news to blacks then and now: they STILL aren't on board with this part of white radical chic).


Leave comment