July 4, 1936 - Editorial - Youth = Conscious, by George Lorimer
One of the strangest of recent developments is the endeavor to make the country "youth-conscious." If this means redoubled efforts to find employment for young men and women, or to provide them with vocational guidance, or to help them solve their other problems, then the idea is naturally deserving of praise. But if making the country "youth-conscious" means to set young people apart from other men and women, or to create antagonism between one age group or another, or to persuade any particular age group that its members alone know what the trouble is, then the idea is merely pernicious.
A great deal of the talk about youth movements and youth-consciousness is not only misleading, it is the bunk. Presumably, youth, in this connection, means those from the middle or late teens to the late twenties or very early thirties. But it is just as important to have movements and national consciousness for children and adults in their thirties, forties and fifties, not to mention later decades, as it is to have them for youths.
Human life is not divided into fixed-age groups. Youths stay youths for only a fleeting interval. A human being dies in this country every 30 seconds and another is born much oftener. Human life is a relay race, a moving platform, gradually but surely and continuously changing those of one age or decade into an older one.
Human beings are not divided into sharply defined age groups; on the contrary, they form a seamless web. Normal youths do not want to be considered a race apart, any more than do women. Those of every age are indispensable, just as are male and female. A spokesman for Henry Ford has said that leadership among us has a life of only eight or ten years.
In a recent speech to a group of young men and women, Herbert Hoover stated the case even more pointedly and bluntly. Referring to the oft-repeated assertion that opportunity no longer exists for the young, he spoke of the plant and equipment which have been built up on this continent in the course of several centuries; of the millions of farms and houses; of the railways, highways, power plants, factories, stores, banks, cities, towns, newspapers, colleges and libraries; and he concluded: "It is very sad, but did it ever occur to you that all the people who live in these houses, and all those who run this complicated machine, are going to die? Just as sure as death, the job is yours, and there are opportunities in every inch of it." (pg. 22)
Comments: Let's use some common sense. The main goal of the New Deal was to nationalize labor. The age group between 16 and 32, roughly, represents the breeder stock of the human race. I'm just guessing, but I'd say that most babies are born to mothers and fathers in this year range. It was very important for the New Deal to gain the mind of the youth, for they were the ones who would be conditioning the minds of their offspring, and then the pattern would continue with future generations; and with each succeeding generation the belief that wages [labor] can be legally taxed becomes more firmly implanted in the public mind. I remember that it was in my freshman year in high school in the early 1970's that my agriculture teacher, Mr. Profit, asked our freshman class if any of us didn't have social security numbers to raise our hands. Many did. I was one of them, and he handed out the forms for all of us that didn't have the numbers. We blindly complied with filling out the forms and asked no questions. Our parents approval was not necessary, we all just filled out the forms and gave them to Mr. Profit. When the social security cards came, Mr. Profit proudly handed them out to us. Today, you don't have to fill out any forms because your number in assigned to you at birth. Do you think all this happened by chance? - Or do you think that assigning newborn babies social security numbers at birth was a goal the labor Cannibals wanted to achieve?