Does nearly everyone under 24 seem autistic to you?

Not only is it a big deal... it's the ONLY deal.

The demographic tsunami comes for them, but unlike GenX they're simply not equipped to deal with the test nor with the fallout of their failure.

You know how hillcunts like to bray about being on the "right side" of demograpyhy. That's because they're worse economists than they are politicians. The ACTUAL demographic sledgehammer has more to do with the fact that life expectancy has been increasing at a rate of 1 year every six years. By the time someone hits 65 today, their actual life expectancy will be 92 years old.

So the demographics isn't whether you're white or brown, it's how bitter and cynical the world has made you... and people 65+ are particularly pragmatic about the bullshit the young spew----and no generation has spewed more bullshit than millenials.

Remember how Brexit turned out and every leftist cunt blamed the old? THAT will be the narrative for every upset election for the next few decades.

Only 25, still autistic

People actually use their full strength in a hand shake? That sounds like something an asshole would do. Which probably will be classed as a form of autism soon.

Mist said:

A complete clusterfuck who's supporters had no plan to actual implement it if they won?

Click to expand...

LOL stfu you ignorant cunt.

I was talking about how the entire political community in Europe and elsewhere were thunderstruck by the demographics that brought the Brexit results. Once the smoke cleared you had apoplectic euro-socialists rending their garments about how the OLD robbed the young of their future by freeing them from the shackles of the EU's clammy grip.

But this was a surprise only to the giddy radical left who bulldozed Corbyn into Labour's leadership. They were convinced that the shitskin tide has lifted the Left's electoral boats so well that surely---SURELY---the demographics were on their side. So when the Tories won last year by "shocking" numbers, or the GOP wave in 2010 and 2014, or the "shocking" conservative votes across Europe and even in Scandinavia, they're all perplexed because not only are the browns reliably liberal, they're also the fastest-growing demographic tumor yet observed. But that hasn't been the case in the last few years and it WON'T be for the coming decades.

That's because people are living longer and healthier lives. Life expectancy in the developed world is approaching parity with Japan every year and it hasn't shown signs of slowing during the great recession. And guess what, people over 55 years old are broadly conservative REGARDLESS of their race or class. People over 65 are almost entirely conservative and have the highest voter participation rates everywhere.

This is a consequence of unprecedented prosperity in the west, and it should've been obvious that it was eventually going to happen. Although it's only been felt in the last decade or so, nowadays the wealthiest most developed states are also the ones leading the charge with the imbalance of the elderly outnumbering the young. In 1995, the list of developed states where old voters outnumbered the young were limited to places like Italy and Japan.. by 2020, 35 of the world's largest economies will be effective Gerontocracies:

Bloomberg said:

More Old Than Young: A Demographic Shock Sweeps the Globe
By 2030, 56 countries will have more people aged 65 and over than children under 15

What began in 1995 in a single country, Italy, will spread to 56 nations, economies as diverse as New Zealand and Georgia, by 2030. These are the findings of Joseph Chamie, who spent a quarter of a century studying population patterns at the United Nations in New York and now is an independent researcher.

The former UN head demographer compared population projections of kids under the age of 15 to that of people aged 65 and over. It’s not just industrialized nations like Japan and Germany succumbing to the age curse. The turning point will take place in 2020 in the Cuba and South Korea, followed five years later in Thailand and the U.S. By 2075, the global population is forecast to pass the demographic milestone.

Click to expand...

This chart is global, the corpulent western democracies are obviously way ahead of the curve of say, Zimbabwe.



So yeah, regardless of your kossack-regurgitated quip about the Brexit, be ready for more "shocks" and weepy tattooed hipsters on youtube crying about racists and how its all unfair. Because it is, and there's nothing they can do about it except kill grandma.

I am curious how fast nutrition/medicine/technology are advancing in keeping humans able to contribute to society vs. the increased longevity. For instance, if you say people used to retire at 65 and live until 75 but now people retire at 70 but live until 90 then the real insidious issue is that you've doubled the length of time old people have to rely on built wealth or government handouts to survive which means that not only is the population increase a factor, you've just DOUBLED costs on top of it (at a minimum).

Retiring at 65 is untenable. We need to anchor the retirement age to life expectancy (like some countries already do) before we are fucked.

In fact that aging electorate thing usually comes up because that was the BIGGEST obstacle to meaningful entitlement reform: old people vote often and always for their self-interest. So despite how fiscally conservative 65+ voters usually are (and they are) they also vote in lock-step to oppose any and all entitlement reform.

Mist said:

All that the Brexit campaign proved is that old people are just as easily duped by clueless, incompetent politicians as the young are.

Click to expand...

By far the most emotional and irrational response to Brexit was Ossoi on this forum. So I would say it in fact still showed that the young are more easily duped.

khorum said:

Retiring at 65 is untenable. We need to anchor the retirement age to life expectancy (like some countries already do) before we are fucked..

Click to expand...

Definitely. It just isn't economically feasible to support people retiring at 65 (which really, many retire way earlier than that) when people are living longer and longer.

Let alone douchenozzles that want to retire at 44. Shit, I'm 42 now and healthy. It is just unthinkable that the government should somehow be set up to allow me to retire in 2 years and live off subsidies until I die.

khalid said:

Definitely. It just isn't economically feasible to support people retiring at 65 (which really, many retire way earlier than that) when people are living longer and longer.

Let alone douchenozzles that want to retire at 44. Shit, I'm 42 now and healthy. It is just unthinkable that the government should somehow be set up to allow me to retire in 2 years and live off subsidies until I die.

Click to expand...

Well the catch is that people have declining muscle mass, worsening eye sight, poorer coordination, more frequent medical problems and the like as they get older.

My point being, if we are extending frail corpses another 5, 10, 15 years that will never in any way help society even as 'nice' it is emotionally to help Grandma live to be 119.

Mist said:

It's a solid theory. Also part of the chicken/egg with the whole childhood obesity thing.

Click to expand...

What came first, Son of Baconator or fat children?

Yes. As an adult, I enjoy "son of the baconator". The real thing is too big for me.

She will be someones mother, one day. She will spawn a new generator of more feeble, more dependent, more effeminate, cucks then the limp wrist-ed, mustachioed hipster who impregnated her.

And Boko Haraam will eat them alive, erasing the entirety of Western civilization in it's wake.