Posts Tagged ‘1980s’

Inner Values Versus External Values

Sunday, November 5th, 2017

Some years ago it became clear that the Right was divided between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. The former group were essentially classical liberals who wanted low government intrusion and decisions to be made by the open markets; the latter believed there were values above what socialism or capitalism could address, and argued in defense of culture, heritage and hierarchy.

This situation became more complicated because most social conservatives agree with the basic idea of fiscal conservatism, namely capitalism with small government, but believe that something else must be added above it. As many have observed, any single thing given absolute power tends to re-arrange what is under its power so that it can increase that power.

In traditional civilization, leaders attempted to unite each society around the central principles of its culture as expressed in aristocracy, caste, religious customs, and learning, with those then regulating the markets and social behavior. Modern society inverts this by placing markets and social behavior above that inner social order.

With the rise of the Alt Right, this debate continues to play out, with Hans-Hermann Hoppe taking a middle position:

If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts or more precisely physical clashes would be impossible.

…Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual or group of individuals.

…The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory – a tranquil, convivial social order – requires also a commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and convention.

He comes short of recognizing race-culture theory, which holds that culture has a genetic basis and also shapes the genetics of the population in a feedback loop, but points out the duality of conservatism: it relies on self-organizing systems like capitalism, but also requires defining an environment for those systems, and this works when done through innate and inner traits like culture, heritage and values but turns totalitarian if based on elective traits like ideology.

One attempt to synthesize the two comes from propertarianism:

The physical universe, at its lowest level, consists of a market, just like our own markets, wherein humans are just a very complex (high) scale, across multiple hierarchical markets, each of which consists of symmetries, produced by the limits of operations – just as man is limited by his physical, emotional, and intellectual operations that we call ‘actions’.

When we operate by markets we operate in harmony with the physical universe – meaning the lowest possible friction – and we fulfill life’s purpose at the highest extant level of symmetry, wherein all life serves the purpose of defeating entropy. As such we defeat entropy by the incrementally fastest means possible.

…which also includes some aspects of traditionalism:

We had the Best System of Government (Perfect Government) and we blew it:

1) Nomocracy (Rule of Law by Natural Law of Torts: Reciprocity)
2) A Hereditary Monarchy as Judge of Last Resort, and custodian of territory, institutions, organizations, families, and individuals….. A State(Foreign Relations) Organization, …. A Professional Military, …. A Professional Judiciary, and …. A Treasury of Last Resort.
3) A Market for Commons consisting of:…. Regional Nobility(Persistent families) serving as a normative Supreme Court …. A House of Industry(Commons) for those with responsibilities….. A Church Serving as a House of Labor and family.
4) A Local (Democratic) Polity(private partnership) of Property Owners…. A Militia and Sheriffs…. Voluntary Civic Organizations
5) The Nuclear Family. And Family and Nation as subject of policy
6) The Individual and Property as the subject of law.

In other words, it combines the formal and informal aspects of the republic that the founders of America intended, but grafts onto it the hereditary monarchy that those founders wanted but were afraid to formalize, knowing that it would again become a target of the Church and mercantile classes.

While this is a wonderful start, it needs enhancement, because it forgets the ultimate properties: intangibles like culture, race and heritage, which includes the history of a people that centers it within an identity. We need to be proud of our past and know we have control of our future. That can only occur if we stop relying on systems and instead build a civilization.

If we are going to use the property model, we should consider past and future to be properties as well in which all of us have a stake. These properties need to be curated at a level more intense than that applied to tangible properties because the intangibles cover a greater span of time and have more ultimate effect.

Traditionalism acknowledges this need. We cannot use materialism to enforce virtue; that method only works for the Left through its mental control of political correctness, where fear of saying the wrong thing leads us to alter our thoughts. We must acknowledge the non-material, namely the ideas that make the best quality of civilization, and elevate it above the tangibles.

Our other option is to face the emptiness of a market society

No, I’m not surprised. I mean, what binds us? What do we all have in common anymore? I think we have to think about that. I think this is — when I was a kid, even as we had laws that held us apart, there were things that we held dear and that we all had in common. And I think we have to — we always talk about E pluribus unum. What’s our unum now? We have the pluribus. What’s the unum? And I think it’s a great country. I think we, for whatever reasons, have made it our — some people have decided that the Constitution isn’t worth defending, that history isn’t worth defending, that the culture and principles aren’t worth defending. And, certainly, if you are in my position, they have to be worth defending. That’s what keeps you going. That’s what energizes you. … I don’t know what it is that we have, we can say instinctively, we have as a country in common.

Both Communism and capitalism have been used to create market societies. In each case, money is used to manipulate people into doing what those in power desire. Whether that money is distributed equally, making people dependent on the state, or unequally, making them dependent on their customers or employers, the result is the same: social control enforcing lowest common denominator standards.

People love materialism because, by eliminating the question of inner attributes, it makes all people equal which means that none can suffer a loss in social status because of the bad results of their actions. This is individualism, because it means that the individual is protected from the consequences of his actions.

The Left tries to hide this, and wants you to see “individualism” as the mental habit of caring about how your time (and thus, money) is spent and to want that time to be meaningful. This was expressed stunningly in an article about how identity politics as the result of confused identity:

“[T]hirty years of economic growth and technological advance that followed the Second World War,” he argues, combined with new geographic, institutional, and erotic mobility and led to a “hyperindividualistic bourgeois society, materially and in our cultural dogmas.”

Flush with prosperity and unprecedented new freedoms, we moderns, Lilla believes, went on to atomize ourselves: “Personal choice. Individual rights. Self-definition. We speak these words as if a wedding vow.” By the 1980s, such hyperindividualism coalesced into what he calls the “Reagan Dispensation,” which prized self-reliance and small government over the collective—thus marking a radical break from the preceding “Roosevelt Dispensation” emphasizing more communal attachments, including duty and solidarity.

…In this head-on collision of purported creation stories about sexual and gender identity that cannot possibly both be true, we see once more that the question Who am I? is the most fraught of our time.

…In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of how democratic governance shapes familial relations, rendering fathers and sons more equal and closer and less hierarchical than they are in its aristocratic counterparts. If it’s obvious that a form of government can shape the family, isn’t it even more obvious that the first polity to which future citizens belong—the family—will shape the kind of citizens they become?

Our macro-politics have gone tribal because our micro-politics are no longer familial.

They forget that the 1980s were a response to the insanity of the 1960s, and that the “geographic, institutional and erotic mobility” was a result of Leftist policies designed to remove natural hierarchy within humanity. This caused the atomization described in the article, and that caused the rampant self-interest as people scrambled to escape the disaster before it dominated.

Ultimately, as in many things, de Tocqueville has the last word: without civilization acting as a larger family, including hierarchy, entropy wins as individuals seek their own directions, causing a crippling lack of unity which then creates atomization and the rampant self-interest which Leftists bemoan.

Our future lies in making inner values the essence of our society. A hierarchy of those with “force of intellect” and “force of moral character” provides a familial structure, fosters sanity and encourages fairness in judgments. While capitalism is a cornerstone of this, it is not the full story, which is why fiscal conservatives need social conservative ideas to make their “systems” work.

Generation Z Introduces Its Own Art Form

Wednesday, June 7th, 2017

Generation X was born after the fall of the West and left to inherit the misery. The Millennials, who grew up and were indoctrinated in school at the peak of 1968ers/Baby Boomer power, tried to recapture the old Leftist spirit. But Generation Z, seeing how the millennials turned into narcissistic and self-serving zombies, is pushing back.

With “fashwave” music, this generation has defined itself. It carries on the melodic sense of the 1940s with contemporary techno run through the filter of 1980s industrial and synthpop. This gives it the more coherent structure and melodic development of the older music with the more powerful techniques of the present.

In addition, this style is picking up in the mainstream through rock that combines 1950s vocal lines with 1980s music. People are looking back to the last points where anything made sense, and through a combination of nostalgia and longing, attempting to resurrect what they find beautiful in those eras.

Steering Away From The Iceberg

Friday, December 16th, 2016

Generation X grew up under the shadow of doom: we recognized that our society, as designed, was headed for collapse and that the Baby Boomers had taken everything good for themselves and then set a timer to destroy it so that others could not have it.

This created an apocalyptic generation, aware of the inevitability of its doom and the certainty that it would not live the blessed life that previous generations had experienced. For one thing, wages began stagnating when women entered the workforce; for another, new rules and mandatory education made it hard to rise without the right credentials, keeping the most competent out and ensuring that every office was run by over-qualified nitwits.

In addition, social decay had taken hold. Sexual liberation meant that one never found an innocent spouse, but a jaded one, unlikely to stay married. Diversity meant ruined cities and a manic need for money to escape the ever-advancing decay. Equality meant that every product would be the lowest common denominator, every election a defeat, and social interaction a matter of dodging morons to find time alone.

We were doomed and we knew it.

Our musical choices reflected that. Perhaps the most telling symbol came from this metaphor for decay:

Those who came before us had sabotaged us. They set us up to fail and ruined what we would inherit. Then they blamed us for being “lazy,” as if the same rules that applies fifty years prior somehow applied to our careers, after regulations, lawsuits, affirmative action, a female workforce and the power of academia shattered our own prospects. They wanted us to fail so they could conclude the problem was within our generation and not the actions of the generation prior.

The metaphor comes alive in this moment:

You’re scheming on a thing that’s a mirage
I’m trying to tell you now it’s sabotage
Why; our backs are now against the wall
Listen all of y’all it’s a sabotage

Most good music is metaphorical, both so the artists avoid retribution and because communicating a spirit and pattern is more flexible and effective than arguing with people. Metaphor brings out the feeling of an age and the sensations of a generation which they perceive but cannot yet articulate. Songs give them a reference point to discover years later.


This is a song of frustration. It seems both metaphorical and literal in that many of the acts it threatens are not intended at all to be carried out by the musicians, but are expressive of their frustration; at the same time, it appears addressed at the world at large. The point is that all actions in this new world will fail because other people hold the strings, and they are oblivious to noticing reality.

We don’t care, it’s not our fault that we were born too late
A screaming headache on the brow of the state
Killing time is appropriate

…Now I know what is right
I’ll kill them all if I like
I’m a time bomb inside
No one listens to reason,
It’s too late and I’m ready to fight!

Born too late? No one listens to reason? Sounds entirely like the 1980s: when the time bombs of Leftist 1960s policy and 1930s social changes came home to roost and essentially ruined everything good. The fundamental change of the USA from a WASP-oriented, conservative society to an inclusive and standards-free place resulted in the creation of a unique hell, which accelerated the police state around us as social order imploded.

But while the edgy kids listened to Ministry, those who were more seriously ready to drop out and get the heck away from the lit fuse were listening to Slayer:

It even sounded epic, like the cathedrals and battles of yore. Couched as a song about judgment day, it uncannily described the environment we grew up in. Social order had failed, the end was near, and judgment was at hand if not by God, by our own actions. In a crisis, people divide into those who can face the crisis, as we see in horror films as a trope of the genre, versus those who go into denial. This was an anthem against the pathology of the Baby Boomers, oblivious self-congratulatory denial.

Bastard sons begat your cunting daughters,
Promiscuous mothers with your incestuous fathers.
Ingrate souls condemned for all eternity,
Obtained by immoral observance a domineering deity.

Chaos rampant,
An age of distrust.
Impulsive sabbath.

This was the music that came after the wistful and romantic pop of the 1980s, in which instead of commenting on the decay or longing for something better, we confronted the hard fact: the good guys lost and the bad guys won, and in the resulting society, idiots and jerks would always win. Decay was not a risk, but a reality. The apocalypse was now.

Where in the past people had the chance to steer Titanic away from the iceberg, now the course was set. Anyone who rushed to the bridge and demanded a change in course would be branded a heretic or fool and destroyed. And the ship would churn onward, guided by the addiction to illusion that was necessary for the Baby Boomers to feel good about themselves, which seemed to be all they cared about.

At this point, the gash is in the side of the ship and water is rushing in. We cannot stop it from going down, but we can plan our next destination. We have lifeboats and if we are sane, we will load those who noticed the decline into them and let them set up a new civilization, then let the others sink with the ship and clear aside the wreckage to start anew.

Recommended Reading