The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Today's Conservatives Are Yesterday's Liberals
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Okay, that’s hyperbolic. More accurately, this generation’s conservatives are last generation’s liberals:

The question of what conservatism is conserving, exactly, remains an open question that Conservatism, Inc has a tough time answering.

GSS variables used: HOMOSEX(1), YEAR, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: GSS, Homosexuality 
Hide 89 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. it looks like the end of the cold war, around 1991, is when things really started going downhill. that makes some sense, as that’s when the left could really have started focusing exclusively on destroying the US socially, now that the great military threat that was supposedly uniting americans had ended. also, that’s when neocons had less reason to toe the line with paleocons, for the same exact reason. less agreement on coming together to defeat the Soviet Union, more focus on undercutting and backstabbing paleocons on social issues while trying to divert the US military to fight wars for Israel.

    “The question of what conservatism is conserving, exactly, remains an open question that Conservatism, Inc has a tough time answering.”

    gun rights, mostly. lower tax rates, to some degree. total fail on almost everything else, to our misfortune.

    i guess i’ll take an unpopular stand – lower tax rates really are pretty important. no, they aren’t the most important thing, or something that can help you run a country when everything else is going the wrong direction. but low tax rates are a big part of what has lead to the US being the most productive nation in the world. affordable family formation isn’t just a Steve slogan.

    even our enemies openly acknowledge, with revealed preference in an economist’s terms, that they prefer low tax rates, and deliberately move from high tax rate jurisdictions to low tax rate ones, voluntarily. of course, they then destroy said low rate rate jurisdictions, by continuing to vote for the same exact thing they voted for previously. but that’s a different topic.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    , @MarkinLA
    , @Lot
  2. LondonBob says:

    I didn’t leave the Conservative Party, the party left me.

  3. Rosie says:

    In the age of the idiot box, it couldn’t possibly be any different. Whoever controls media will control minds, and the trend will always be toward elite modes of thinking.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
  4. SFG says:

    The phenomenon’s pretty old, remember Ambrose Bierce? “Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.”

    That’s why you have the word ‘reactionary’ to describe someone who actually wants to move backwards in time, though like everything else it’s often used as an insult by people on the other side. (‘Fascist’ is a little more specific for a racially-oriented Big Government, though of course you have lefties applying it to Ben Shapiro.)

    I remember reading a really funny bit on the web about how you ought to have ‘standpats’ between conservatives and reactionaries who wanted to keep things exactly as they were.

    You can see this with liberals around the 60s being huge fans of free speech to overthrow the existing 50s social order. Now it’s conservatives who want free speech to keep from being deplatformed and shadowbanning; the left, being in ascendance, is eager to use censorship to shut down its critics.

    Interestingly, there’s a bit of a backlash on the center-left that still believes in free inquiry, but it’s too small to have much effect.

    Whatever you think of Quillette, I thought this bit on the media bias rating was funny:

    Worth noting: some on the team thought Quillette deserved a Center or Lean Left media bias rating. This is because Quillette features classically liberal arguments, but classically liberal ideas are now more commonly associated with the Right. Our confidence rating for Quillette’s media bias rating is “Initial or Low.”

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @songbird
  5. So, what does that make yesterday’s conservatives. Oh yeah, silly me for forgetting what they in the MSM keep telling us … Nazis.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  6. @Rosie

    You’ll note that the idiot box had been common in US homes for about 50 years before the results start trending down.

    • Replies: @SFG
  7. SFG says:
    @Cloudbuster

    Right, but they only started pushing it in the 90s or so. When was Will & Grace?

  8. Back in the day, Eldridge Cleaver defined a liberal as “a mixture of jive and bullsh*t,” so it comes as no surprise that persons of this mindset could easily become befuddled into conservatism. “Radical” on the other hand derives from the Latin word meaning root; this discipline is about identifying and correcting the root of a problem, and we of this persuasion have not yet seen any tangible reason to alter our critique of America.

  9. Mark G. says:
    @prime noticer

    This graph shows that the nineties were more radical than people think. This was the period when the student leftists from the sixties reached middle age and got firmly in control of the media and higher education. This was the period when multiculturalism and its enforcement arm, political correctness, spread and it became increasingly difficult to criticize other cultures as inferior to traditional American culture. Cultural decadence became much more pronounced during this period in popular music with the spread of gangsta rap like N.W.A. and Tupac Shakur and non-rap like Madonna and Marilyn Manson. Violence and sexual perversion spread in movies like “Natural Born Killers”, “Reservoir Dogs”, “Eyes Wide Shut” and others too numerous to mention. Bizarre behavior even spread to sports where role models for children were replaced with characters like Dennis Rodman.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  10. @SFG

    One of the first openly homosexual TV characters was played by Billy Crystal (is there an echo in here?) on the sitcom SOAP in the late 1970’s.

    I believe the massive propaganda campaign initiated in the mid 1980’s by the left to dishonestly revise the nature of the spread of HIV from what it is: a primarily homosexually transmitted disease, to just a sexually transmitted disease, contributed to the overall cultural acceptance of homosexuality. In that sense, the best thing that ever happened to the homosexual rights movement was AIDS.

  11. @SFG

    Good point. Perhaps one could graph answers to other social questions, if the survey went back that far, and see if the big up- or down-ticks match our experience with the idiot plate*.

    I can tell you that the feminism was pushed hard already in the 1970s. Take Maude …. please. My Dad would complain about the agenda about single Moms such as in One Day at a Time, in which Ann Romano was supposed to be a figure we sympathized with. In fact, the only thing on that show we all sympathized with was the rear end of Valerie Bertinelli.

    Mary Tyler Moore was another great example. My Dad: “When is she gonna get married?” Read up sometime on “Minnegadishu and Mary Tyler Moore”. The cntl-left media agenda was in full swing even 45 years back.

    .

    * Technically, without the big tube, it’s much closer to a flat plate. It’s time to update our language.

    • Replies: @Thomm
  12. @MikeatMikedotMike

    That shit is STILL going on, Mike! I pulled up a youtube video on a song I liked (you all know I like to do that), and the 15 second ad started with “HIV is for everybody” or just about like that, probably not the exact wording. It’s 2019 – most of us know by now that that was a bunch of garbage to keep people from blaming the epidemic on gay people, who spread it.

  13. Today’s Conservatives Are Yesterday’s Liberals.

    The Doobie Brothers were onto this 50 years ago,

    From What were Once Vices are Now Habits:

  14. Screwtape says:
    @SFG

    It would also be interesting to note when Conservative Inc splintered into “fiscally conservative, but socially liberal”.

    As that phrase picked up around that same time perhaps that marked the point at which the culture war was all but over for the conservatives.

    IOW the end of “family values” and the beginning of the dominant ideology of Progressivism, which by definition required its replacement with the moving targets of equality, diversity, and multiculti.

    Aka “not who we are” replaced who we actually were, blood and soil became the Proposition Nation, and we the people became, the sacred Individual (consumer).

    Once it became socially risky or lower status or “uncool” to hang onto ‘backward’ social values, all that remained was the flag waving, low taxes, guns, and the rear guard intellectual posturing over the bones that Progressive values chose not to chew upon. Mostly because they were taking so much ground so quickly they didn’t have time.

    The Libertarians have been hanging onto this splinter ever since. Arguing esoteric economic theory while trannies teach their kids how to have proper anal sex and the zeroith amendment paints them into a shrinking corner where they must continually prove they are not sexist or raciss for desiring some old threads of a nation.

  15. Rahan says:

    *Classical conservatives* believe in change that is organic, and happens without forced 5 year plans or megalomaniac social engineering.

    *Populists* believe that whatever changes are a possible optio–the population gets to decide, best of all–through a referendum. Also that while the elites should have a voice, minorities should have rights, and businesses should have a free hand up to a point, this group of elites+minorities+businesses should not be allowed to create a monopoly on govt and insitutions.

    *Liberal conservatives* believe this all should take place in an environment without censorship, and also that people tell the govt and businesses what to do and punish them if unhappy, not the govt and businesses telling people what to do and punish them if unhappy.

    *Nationalists* believe that that a nation is defined by its cultural, historical, and ethnic heritage, and is not a mere formality which can be inhabited by any random group of people shipped over from some random place. This would, in fact, wound or even kill the nation.

    Today most sane people are a combination of all of those, ideologically. So in the theoretical sense “what should be conserved” is “the original social contract of the Free World” as in “We the people get to decide everything”.

    There was a joke, 20-30 years ago, about the government deciding it was unhappy with its people and deciding to vote for a new one.

    Today this is happening. The Great Replacement is producing the population which “elites”, “minorities”, and “honest corporations” need. So what the “ebil reactionaries” are trying to conserve in down to earth practice, is the physical existence of “We the people”, before it turns into “just those random consumers and voters who can be manipulated in any way we smart people decide”.

  16. Today’s Conservatives Are Yesterday’s Liberals

    Donor-Controlled Cuckservatives Are The Enemy Of White Core America

    Jared Taylor on CUCKSERVATIVES from 2015:

    You are not alone. Like you, Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller, Taylor Millard at Hot Air, the blogger Ace of Spades, and Jim Harper with the Cato Institute are all squirming under the lash of this new coinage. They are squirming because a single word– CUCKSERVATIVE –lays bare the rot at the heart of your movement: American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation’s founding stock. I’ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.

    I say that Conservatism Inc. or — CUCKSERVATISM Inc. — must be completely and totally destroyed.

    Edmund Burke would give the all clear sign for White Core American Patriots to make total political and rhetorical war upon the dark, evil donor-controlled minion puppets of CONSERVATISM Inc. and CUCKSERVATISM.

    The Republican Party must be destroyed. The Democrat Party must be destroyed.

    White Core American Patriots must not let first-past-the-post electoral political proceduralism inhibit their efforts to destroy the Republican Party.

    The Green Party will enjoy a massive growth of political support once phony globaloney baby boomer boob Warren or globalizer geezer boy Biden is the apparent Democrat Party presidential nominee.

    The White Core America political party must match the efforts of the Green Party by dedicating themselves to destroying the rancid Republican Party.

    Andrew Jackson and George Washington would fully support the patriotic march of White Core America as we completely and totally destroy and replace the treasonous globalizer Republican Party.

    White Core America policy:

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS NOW!

    Nationalize The Federal Reserve Bank

    No More Endless War For Israel — America First Foreign Policy Now!

    200 Percent Tariffs On All Goods And Services Entering The USA — Revenue Tariff or Prohibitive Tariff Now!

    Immediate Repudiation Of All Government Debt Now!

    Easy Extinguishment Of All Private Debt Now!

    Student Loan Debt Extinguishment Now — Every Penny Of Every Student Loan Ever Issued Must Be Paid Back To Borrower With 6 Percent Per Year Added On For Opportunity Costs Lost.

    Mass Deportation Of 50 Or 60 Million Foreigners And Their Spawn To Protect The Environment.

    Tweets from 2015:

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  17. @Screwtape

    “It would also be interesting to note when Conservative Inc splintered into “fiscally conservative, but socially liberal”.

    That’s a more difficult delineation to identify, but it’s pretty clear when ConInc shifted in “fiscally liberal, socially liberal” and that was Bush the Lessor.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  18. songbird says:
    @SFG

    remember Ambrose Bierce?

    Always liked this one:
    Corsair: n. politician of the seas.

  19. Personally i blame Bill Clinton and the rise of the internet for this leftwards spike on abortion, same sex marriage, and drug use

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  20. dfordoom says: • Website
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    I believe the massive propaganda campaign initiated in the mid 1980’s by the left to dishonestly revise the nature of the spread of HIV from what it is: a primarily homosexually transmitted disease, to just a sexually transmitted disease, contributed to the overall cultural acceptance of homosexuality. In that sense, the best thing that ever happened to the homosexual rights movement was AIDS.

    I agree. It was AIDS that made homosexuals sacred. If you were even mildly critical of homosexuals then you were an evil Nazi who wanted to genocide homosexuals.

  21. @Oblivionrecurs

    I blame it on the neocons. Once they infiltrated the republican party and subsequently replaced the true conservative punditry with their own such as Kristol and Krauthammer, there was no more conservatism left in government or the media at all.

    The neocons were Scoop Jackson democrats who just started calling themselves conservatives, and were called by the media “neoconservatives”. None of them are conservative at all.

    Clinton couldn’t have influenced the GOP to drift leftwards. The neocons had already done that while Clinton was still smuggling drugs into Arkansas.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    , @MarkinLA
  22. Jay Fink says:
    @Screwtape

    Yet conservatives have become much more fiscally liberal too. Just look at the current level of deficit spending and how conservatives (both politicians and voters) are fine with it.

    • Replies: @Screwtape
    , @Feryl
  23. @Achmed E. Newman

    The antivirus I run has an effective adblock feature. I’m listening to a new Tool song on YouTube as we speak; if an ad popped up during a groove I’d crap my pants.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  24. @Charles Pewitt

    It’s always 2015 in your world. I don’t remember 2015. Was it a good year for you?

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  25. @Twodees Partain

    And now the neocons have aligned with the cabal of Obama-Clinton national security elites and the administrative state in the Democratic Party. The neocons are Trotskyites in disguise so it’s a good match. Their Resistance and Woke revolutions are another aspect of globohomolism.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  26. @SunBakedSuburb

    My sentiments, exactly. They seem to jump like fleas from one party to the other, depending on who has the upper hand.

  27. Thomm says:

    The thing is, no one is actually right-wing except Libertarians.

    The NRO-style cuckservatives are just the leftists of a few years ago. Add to that their deep-state sympathies, and they are not right-wing by any definition.

    At the same time, the White Trashionalists are right-wing only by the European definition, but emphatically NOT by the American definition. Their economic views are very left-wing and outright socialist. They also have a very high homosexual component. The only reason they happen to be in the Republican Party is because they hate blacks slightly more than they hate Libertarians. Educated people know that Nazi Germany was a left-wing state, and that the KKK originated from Democrats.

    • LOL: Screwtape
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Mark G.
  28. Thomm says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I can tell you that the feminism was pushed hard already in the 1970s. Take Maude …. please.

    ‘Maude’ was weird and didn’t have an easy sell to the TV audience, but since ‘Good Times’ was a spinoff of ‘Maude’, it bridged the relevance of the franchise to today.

    Hence we have a song I recently wrote :


    She Dy-no-mite, she Dy-no-mite!!
    When we boink, it outta sight!

    I is black, and she is white,
    One matches the other like day and night!

    WN wiggers, they quake with fright,
    But after a while, just burn with spite.

    Together, we set the stage alight!
    She Dy-no-mite, she Dy-no-mite!!

    _____________________________________

  29. @SunBakedSuburb

    It’s always 2015 in your world. I don’t remember 2015. Was it a good year for you?

    2015 was about 5 minutes ago.

    1965 was about an hour ago.

    1965 brings up IMMIGRATION and the rancid Republican Party.

    Trump and the rancid Republican Party push nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Ronald Reagan — the treasonite Republican Party scumbag from Illinois — gave amnesty to almost 3 million illegal alien invaders in 1986.

    Mitch McConnell — the chinless Republican Party treasonite who has close ties to the Chinese Communist Party — voted for Ronald Reagan’s 1986 AMNESTY for illegal alien invaders.

    The Republican Party is evil and it must be destroyed.

    George Washington and Andrew Jackson, if they were alive today, would immediately raise an army to defeat the rancid treasonites in the Republican Party.

    The Cheap Labor Faction in the Republican Party pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration in order to lower wages for American workers and to replace American workers and to keep housing costs high.

    White Core America Rising!

    Now Is The Time For All Patriotic Americans To Destroy The Treasonous Republican Party.

    Since you don’t remember 2015 too well, I’ll give you another Tweet from that long ago era.

    Way back in the mists of time — 2015 — a Tweet was created:

  30. Thomm says:

    It is true that people considered far-left in the 80s were still respectable like the Keatons (a married couple with four children).

    But transgendered characters (NOT actors) were appearing in prime-time shows as early as the 70s.

  31. Michael S says:

    Wait 20 years and you’ll see the same graph for pre-teen hormone “therapy” and Drag Queen Story Hour.

    Sad.

  32. anon[415] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm

    The thing is, no one is actually right-wing except Libertarians.

    Lol! Open borders and “muh legal pot” isn’t right-wing, it’s just dopey. You’re funny. Dumb, but funny.

  33. Screwtape says:
    @Jay Fink

    Jay, good point. Both sides of the uniparty are drunken spenders, so what they mean when they say the fiscal/liberal mantra is: “I don’t care who you bang, but I want to keep as much of MY money as possible”.

    The conservative/liberal divide is really a matter of categorical allocation of spending and not so much the spending itself.

    The whole thing is a kind of virtue signaling anyhow.

    I don’t hear it as often these days. I hear mostly libertarian posturing now. Which really is the same kind of braggart/coward combo that avoids uttering the word ‘conservative’.

    Its a common position of blue cosmopolitan goodwhites who aren’t quite on board with the death cult but still want to get invited to the dinner party. You know, the paradox of: my portfolio is really killing it; my daughter is a bisexual barista.

  34. Mark G. says:
    @Thomm

    Libertarianism as a political philosophy would merely say you shouldn’t throw homosexuals in prison. In theory you could hold the position that homosexuality should be legal while at the same time still saying it is morally wrong. Many liberals would go even further and say it not only is not morally wrong but for anyone to criticize it as a lifestyle choice would be morally wrong. Liberals often misrepresent what this lifestyle normally involves, i.e. extreme levels of promiscuity in the gay community. They are also reticent to discuss the role this lifestyle played in the spread of AIDS, preferring to blame Reagan or others for the spread of the disease by not being aggressive enough in leading the fight against it. It’s this reluctance to pass moral judgement on any of their pet minorities and to criticize anyone who does that typifies liberals. At the very least, you would have to say the lifestyle of many gay men was not desirable since in the recent past it led to a massive epidemic that often ended up killing its victims.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  35. @SunBakedSuburb

    Yeah, I can’t go that way on one of the devices for work-related reasons. That sounds great though, SBS.

    The ad is only at the beginning, BTW, but it’s a whole 15 s, and you can’t switch tabs and have the time still elapse. Oh, hell yeah, if an ad popped up during a song, that would be the end of my “patronage”.

  36. lhtness says:

    The question of what conservatism is conserving, exactly, remains an open question that Conservatism, Inc has a tough time answering.

    The Babyon Bee ran an article last week answering this question: https://babylonbee.com/news/conservatives-successfully-conserve-massive-deficits/

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  37. What a conservative does is contend for a lifestyle that reflects and maximizes individual freedoms base on behaviors that build individuals as well as community. A community and self that is ordered not for the sake of order, but rather order provides the best means of maximizing freedoms. A conservative has respect for institutions because they lend themselves to those ends.

    The first in that ethos is an acknowledgement of the divine who and establishes orderly systems and rules

    The rules are not the ends in themselves but are tools used for greater end

    The press for truth and honesty is central to the established order one is seeking to maintain, and see grow

    The conservative does not reject change, but should be required, seeks to do so in the least disruptive manner as possible.

    No conservative has a magic wand against the choices of disintegration of his or her fellows. So in a community in which members are free to choose, the question is whether said choice is to the public benefit or merely self. But if the system chooses that self over community say as in the case of same sex marriage — a conservative can only advocate the more tenable position. Should the majority choose a path of destruction — no conservative need blame themselves for the community choice.

    The contend that conservatives aren’t conserving is akin the contend about not teaching abstinence in schools because it doesn’t work. Yet, it works 100% of the time. More effective than devices for birth control which don’t work either unless one actually sues them.

    Conservative ethos works, well, unless one chooses to abide by some other manner. And in our times, fewer and fewer people are opting for a conservative ethos. And I would admit that is because people have an incorrect view of what conservatism is and does (if anything) and the many attachments conservatives have embraced with practices that violate truth/honest dealings. I won’t bother mentioning the more obvious practices. But less obvious our the issues of use of of force as a substitute for the end equated with the rule of law – order at the expense of justice, has caused conservatives social and political capital.

    But one can’t lay force to something they don’t use.

    And I would agree that conservatives who believe as I do on matters of faith and practice have a little bit more complex task than those who don’t have said ethos.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  38. despite being single and celibate —

    I think the most valuable entity to protect is the integrity of family. husbands and wives (man and woman –uhh that’s womb laden woman) are at the apex of conservative thought in the social arena in my view. And their dissipation is wreaking havoc on the country.

  39. anastasia says:

    It’s so true. When people tell me I am “right wing”, I answer that I am a 19th century liberal.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  40. @The Alarmist

    Exactly. The grandchildren of people who fought the nazis are nazis for believing what their grandfathers believed. It’s simple, dummy!

  41. @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s for everybody!? So are we viralphobic if we don’t want to contract it?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  42. If one really wants a whack

    Consider this there was a time when most people thought relations out of wedlock was wrong.

    —————————————–

    I wanted to spend time with some Tories when I was in the UK, then I realized I was probably too conservative.

  43. @Audacious Epigone

    Like I said, not the exact wording, A.E., haha!

    I don’t know if it’ll pop up again, but maybe “Anyone can get HIV…” (Sure, anyone who bonks another man in …)

    Yes, though, you come off as a bit of a viralphobe on here sometimes. Next thing, you’ll be saying that they should live in their own cultures. Still, it’s better than being a Xenophobe – we should embrace the noble gases rather than be fearful. The other edge of the Periodic Table, well I’m not gonna kid you ….

  44. MarkinLA says:
    @prime noticer

    but low tax rates are a big part of what has lead to the US being the most productive nation in the world.

    Tax rates really aren’t that low in the US – on earned income. On other forms of income, yes, and not for the good. Nobody needs low capital gains rates to entice people to invest their money. Nobody wealthy thinks putting your money in a bank or buying bonds that pay a few percent points interest is going to get or keep you rich. In addition, the carried interest deduction that lets hedge fund managers pay the low capital gains rates on earned income is something that we don’t need and does nothing for productivity.

  45. MarkinLA says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    There was a lot of blaming Reagan for “not doing enough”. I wonder how much of the hatred of Reagan contributed to it’s mainstreaming.

    My hatred of Reagan was pure – immigration, stupid wasteful military spending, refugees from the third world, idiotic trade policies, and guest workers.

  46. MarkinLA says:
    @Twodees Partain

    The neocons had already done that while Clinton was still smuggling drugs into Arkansas.

    That always used to crack me up all those “Mena Arkansas” guys trying to pin the drug smuggling on Clinton while the CIA was under Reagan.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  47. https://babylonbee.com/news/conservatives-successfully-conserve-massive-deficits/”

    laughing. I think this was of the few papers that challenged the invade Iraq bandwagon. But clearly the article is talking about Republicans who call themselves conservatives, not actual conservatives. Looking to politicians for conservatives is no longer what it once was. We are very very small pool.

    And in most cases a thorn in the side to today’s republican party. As fighting against government sprawl and over reach —-

    I don’t know conservative who takes that seriously. but what is unfortunate is that there are not real alternative paths for conservative save to tolerate wincing all the way to the current politics of republicans.

  48. Feryl says: • Website
    @Mark G.

    This graph shows that the nineties were more radical than people think.

    Eh, in terms of actual behavior, the 1990’s were the “family values” decade. The birth rate went up from about 1990-1993, and stayed fairly high in the mid-late 90’s. Divorce rates went down. Abortion rates went down. Drug use was well down from it’s late 1970’s and early 1980’s peak. Crime was mostly confined to black ghettos; white suburbs and small towns were most dangerous in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. 1990’s teenagers were mostly apathetic towards politics and social issues (there was a brief rise in Leftwing activism in the early 90’s, but that was mostly dead by 1994 and often openly ridiculed by non-woke students).

    This was the period when the student leftists from the sixties reached middle age and got firmly in control of the media and higher education.

    Yup, although Gen X-ers in the 1990’s mostly did not listen to middle aged Boomers and whatever traces of hippiedom they still exhibited.

    This was the period when multiculturalism and its enforcement arm, political correctness, spread and it became increasingly difficult to criticize other cultures as inferior to traditional American culture.

    Corporate America never fought for cultural conservatism; once profits overtook cultural stability in importance, in the 1980’s and 90’s, of course dopey crap like PC was going to be enforced big time. Greed is as much to blame as naive Kumbaya Leftism (as opposed to no-nonsense New Deal Leftism).

    Cultural decadence became much more pronounced during this period in popular music with the spread of gangsta rap like N.W.A. and Tupac Shakur and non-rap like Madonna and Marilyn Manson.

    And this retarded bullshit was mostly just theater not to be taken seriously by anyone with an IQ over 95. The actual peak in street crime was in 1979-1980. It was Boomers in the 70’s and 80’s, not Gen X-ers in the 90’s, who started the AIDS epidemic. Interest in the occult (including Satanism) peaked with Boomers and very early X-ers in the 1970’s and early 80’s. You should read some stuff by Neil Howe, who has lots of statistics about all kinds of horrible things peaking in Carter’s Admin, and then gradually entering remission from 1981 onward. Young Gen X-ers and esp. Milennials aren’t as foolish or nihilistic as young Boomers were. Decadent celebrities were worshiped by Boomers from 1967 onward (continuing to this day with their buying into the Trump personality cult to a bigger degree than younger generations), while Kurt Cobain, the “spokesman of Gen X”, was rejected as a coward and a POS drug addict by many X-ers. X-ers may still respect Cobain’s music, but they hate his self-destructive behavior. Meanwhile, for going on 50 years we’ve not heard the end of worship for Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and esp. Jimmy Hendrix, all three of whom were hedonistic assholes who deserved to die young. Countless high profile musicians who came to prominence from the late 60’s-early 90’s have now died from self-destruction, and most of them were born from 1940-1970. Boomers, or near Boomers.

    Violence and sexual perversion spread in movies like “Natural Born Killers”, “Reservoir Dogs”, “Eyes Wide Shut” and others too numerous to mention. Bizarre behavior even spread to sports where role models for children were replaced with characters like Dennis Rodman.

    Actual decadent behavior, again, was much more prevalent in the 1970’s and early 80’s. Decadent weirdos like Oliver Stone and Tarantino have always been championed by Boomers as “bold visionaries”, but fortunately in real life most people do not live in an Stone or Tarantino movie. In terms of 70’s film, apathy or hostility toward stable relationships and children, as well as mindless violence and promiscuity, was quite prevalent, just as it was in real life at the time. Nudity, or near nudity, on mainstream album covers and movie posters peaked in the 70’s and early 80’s. The MPAA in the 70’s and early 80’s regularly allowed graphic violence and nudity to be present in PG rated (!) movies, prior to the 1984 out-cry over Gremlins and Indiana Jones 2 being marketed as “family films” featuring graphic violence. By the late 80’s, horror movies were being heavily censored(which continued into the early 90’s), and the 1989 James Bond movie included an anti-smoking PSA (and smoking bans have risen decade over decade since the 80’s). MTV in the 80’s and most of the 90’s explicitly forbid music videos and song lyrics featuring drug use or graphic violence.

    Censorship has declined a lot since the late 2000’s, although in most respects it’s not as if real life violence, sex, and drug use is that big a problem as it was in the 1970’s-1990’s.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @dfordoom
  49. Feryl says: • Website
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    One of the first openly homosexual TV characters was played by Billy Crystal (is there an echo in here?) on the sitcom SOAP in the late 1970’s.

    The late 1970’s is when our “leaders” began to act like what had once been termed a “counter-culture” in the LBJ and Nixon years. Some of these social changes/trends have never really gone away, others thankfully have (drug use is still way down from it’s late 70’s peak, kittie pron is now vigorously prosecuted, unlike the Jimmy Carter era when many porno shops would keep it in a back room and offer it to patrons upon request; that still is probably the single most damning indictment about the cesspool that was the late 70’s). While modern elites do a lot to publicize some other forms of decadence, fortunately many people within the younger generations have been socialized to not take a lot of the biggest risks that young people in the 1970’s and 80’s often took.

  50. Feryl says: • Website
    @Jay Fink

    Yeah, the biggest disgrace of Reagan (and his many self-professed GOP followers, including GW Bush) is that they effectively did nothing to reduce the size of the government or spend resources wisely, meaning that they all were a bunch of liars, and/or cowards, all along.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  51. I suspect real problem with US conservatism is that they rely too heavily on theories centered around the assumption that a country is successful entirely by policy and has nothing to do with the people. This is why they are so fervently tied to “Free market” policies.

    The Randian sect promotes this pernicious idea. Africa has been a testing ground for Randian theory and last I checked the US/Euro conservatives aren’t lining up to visit Somalia. Oh but that’s Africa they will say privately. That’s caused by corruption or something. Are you sure they aren’t socialist?

    • Replies: @iffen
  52. Lot says:
    @prime noticer

    “ it looks like the end of the cold war, around 1991, is when things really started going downhill.”

    Support for the Gay has increased steadily every year from when it was first polled around 1970 to right now. The single exception to the trendline was when AIDS went first went big from around 82 to 86.

    This poll doesn’t show the increased acceptance in the 70s, probably because of small sample size when the question was first asked.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  53. @EliteCommieInc

    And I would agree that conservatives who believe as I do on matters of faith and practice have a little bit more complex task than those who don’t have said ethos.

    It sounds like you have some good personal ethics but what are conservatives doing on a political level?

    It seems to me that they are incapable of reversing liberalism and are basically dragged along with it.

    I know of a Fortune 500 company that put the public at serious risk because they didn’t want to appear racist and fire an incompetent employee. Eventually that employee quit and went back to the government. True story.

    This is because of liberalism and affirmative action. What is the modern conservative answer here? There isn’t one and in fact many conservative organizations have embraced affirmative action (including for connected Whites).

    Conservatism doesn’t attack the real weakness of liberalism and seems unaware of how much it is dragged along. In 10 years conservatives will be telling us that they always supported 3 way lesbian marriages. But we need more tax cuts.

    I really don’t care for conservatism and especially US conservatism. They can’t explain what they stand for at a political level. They are fine with billions for attack helicopters but balk at spending any money on the poor. Seems like perfect competition for liberalism.

  54. Chesterton answered that question best:

    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.

  55. Renoman says:

    Devious nasty Fags pushing pushing pushing to get more money. They’re wearing us down to where people are thinking that sticking your dick in doo doo is a wonderful idea, maybe even good for you. [it’s a lie!]

  56. dfordoom says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    What a conservative does is contend for a lifestyle that reflects and maximizes individual freedoms base on behaviors that build individuals as well as community.

    You’ve just defined liberalism. Anyone who uses the term “individual freedoms” is a liberal.

    Economic conservatism does not exist. It’s just liberalism. The only difference is that liberals want the liberal agenda to be paid for by taxation while conservatives want it to be paid for by magic.

    There is such a thing as social conservatism but it has no actual connection at all with economic conservatism.

  57. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anastasia

    It’s so true. When people tell me I am “right wing”, I answer that I am a 19th century liberal.

    It’s the same thing.

  58. iffen says:
    @John Johnson

    the US/Euro conservatives aren’t lining up to visit Somalia.

    Why would you need to go to Somalia when you can just go to Minnesota?

    • LOL: Jay Fink
  59. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    Corporate America never fought for cultural conservatism; once profits overtook cultural stability in importance, in the 1980’s and 90’s, of course dopey crap like PC was going to be enforced big time. Greed is as much to blame as naive Kumbaya Leftism (as opposed to no-nonsense New Deal Leftism)

    .

    I agree.

    Meanwhile, for going on 50 years we’ve not heard the end of worship for Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and esp. Jimmy Hendrix, all three of whom were hedonistic assholes who deserved to die young.

    I agree. Interestingly enough Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix were not Boomers. You could add Brian Jones (also not a Boomer) to the list. And Mama Cass Elliot (also not a Boomer). Most of the other really degenerate 60s rock stars (like John Lennon and Grace Slick and Keith Richard) were not Boomers.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  60. @MarkinLA

    That was just my shorthand as a response to the comment placing all the blame on Clinton when he was president. I don’t dismiss the CIA as the actual smuggler of the drugs, nor GHW Bush as the official shepherd of the Mena operation. I just meant to point out that the damage was being done elsewhere before Clinton was president, and to include him in the Mena smuggling operation.

    Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, was involved up to his neck in the CIA drug smuggling, IMO, and GHW Bush was his mentor. It isn’t a “Clinton or CIA/Bush” question. You could say that Mena was a bipartisan operation, to simplify it, though it also shows that the kind of operation it was isn’t partisan at all. The IC is actually non-partisan in domestic clandestine operations like Mena, in my view.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  61. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    Countless high profile musicians who came to prominence from the late 60’s-early 90’s have now died from self-destruction, and most of them were born from 1940-1970.

    The Sixties Generation, the people who mainstreamed drugs and degeneracy in that decade, were mostly born from 1935 to 1945. Not just the worthless trash rock stars and worthless trash movie stars (the Dennis Hoppers and Peter Fondas and Jack Nicholsons) but also the fans who made those disgusting celebrities into celebrities were from that 1935 to 1945 birth cohort.

    The Sixties as a tragic and disastrous social and cultural phenomenon had surprisingly little to do with the Boomers. The music, the movies, the entire cultural scene, the producers and promoters, the record company execs, the movie studio execs – all the people who created and popularised that catastrophic mistake and were the original fan base for cultural decadence – were born 1935-1945 or earlier.

    The Sixties (when the real damage was done) was not the Boomer decade.

    The Seventies was the Boomer decade. The Boomers inherited a well-established world of cultural and social decadence. They didn’t create it.

    • Agree: Charles Pewitt
  62. MarkinLA says:
    @Feryl

    Reagan wanted massive increases in military spending and you weren’t going to get that from a Democrat Congress without massive increases in welfare. The big problem was that the military spending was so wasteful. Money was just thrown at defense contractors. It amazed me when I was at Hughes how little anybody cared about how much was wasted.

  63. MarkinLA says:
    @Twodees Partain

    The whole “Mena Arkansas” garbage was an attempt to pin the drug smuggling on Clinton to derail his campaign and presidency. Clinton was always looking toward the Presidency. No podunk governor is going to screw with and try to shut down a CIA operation in his state if he eventually wants to be President.

    My problem with the whole episode was the ridiculous attempt to shield Reagan and his legacy from an operation that his CIA was responsible for – the buck stopped at him. Reagan was the biggest drug smuggler in the world. Blacks rightly have a compaint with the GOP for Reagan bringing in all the crack into their neighborhoods even if all the local distribution was done by other blacks.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  64. Mulegino1 says:

    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”

    G.K. Chesterton

    The cuckoisie conservative is the effete and cautious curator of the progressive/liberal subversion of culture and society. This is no more evident than in the advance of the homosexual agenda in America during the last six decades or so. It began as “We just want to be left alone,” and advanced through forced social acceptance of the lifestyle in the areas of employment and equality of civil rights. to the imposition of homosexual “marriage” and finally the mandating of praise and the criminalizing of criticism of the homo lifestyle. Now this has progressed to even more morally monstrous mandates such as transgenderism and transhumanism. The cuckoisie could have cared less, as long as they got their tax cuts, the cheap labor for their corporate clients and their wars of choice in the Middle East for the benefit of their chief patron, that criminal little settler compound in the Levant.

    The members of the cuckoisie are the Kerenskys of the new American revolution.

  65. “It sounds like you have some good personal ethics but what are conservatives doing on a political level?”

    Well, they used to represent much of what the Republican party stood for:

    I can tell you that party has been infiltrated by people who use the term conservative but don’t hold said conservative values. I started in with some general principles because ethos is the core to any political belief system.

    1. I think you missed the most important mundane political entity that the US has – support for family cohesion and maintenance.

    2. the reason they tend to support institutions of force: military, police, etc. is because it reflects the inner core support for ordered systems that over time have have proven useful. The mistake is to forget that when those systems operate outside of service and start acting on behalf of their self they cease to fulfill the goals why order matters and become an end. Here’s where mistake liberality on my part. The police must operate in the confines of restrictions and those confines must be consistent and enforced regardless of any officer’s personal feelings of afront, intuition, or social bias — that is a tough task for anyone, muchless a body that comes into so much contact with the public. But a break down of their adherence to the rules on every level and in every way amounts to a insular order – where they are the goal above the community they serve — dangers power accumulation in which community functions to serve their wants and needs as opposed to the other way around. Educational institutions that don’t serve communities but in effect start demanding how communities should serve them and their agendas. That’s the real issue regarding “gig government which is a tad problematic because even a “limited government” will increase in size to serve a growing population. So conservatives would not just be concerned about the size of government but its demand to be served. I have no answer for the government budget that comprises the size of the US economy that ours does — it is my view, why under the circumstances the deficit matters. The republican party most of it has bought into the perspective that more bureaucracy means more order and that is false in my view.

    I cannot imagine how hard it would be to dismantle, avoid, challenge the bureaucratic monolith that is the US government without being inundated by it. And so while I give Republicans a hard time, I am keenly aware that they are more conservative than the democrats and will be more inclined to hold views of push back against government. They have however forgotten that support for the military is not the same as agreeing to agendas the military has outside of their role of servicing the country. Conservatives should be in a state that they are dragged kicking and screaming into using military force or supporting use of force on any level. But when they do it is limited to specifics as opposed to message sending, for the simple reason that message sending is very broad and vague. And why I challenge the use of stats to represent whole populations such as crime stats. Or advocacies such as “war on terror”. A conservative mindset — rooted in actualities — specific crime specific response. Specific act or of terrorists specific response — prudent.

    Anyone who thinks that individual liberty is a liberal notion is missing the point of why conservative ethos is so appealing and is supportive of democracy. Prudence demands limited action against others, unless there is some actual harm. Minding my business is that principle – conservative, which allows others to tend to their own agendas, and all withing limits of community which cannot for the sake of the hole operate in anarchy or chaos — in which everyone gets to do whatever they want – liberty is not infinite.

    You reference some affirmative action issue. I don’t know the details. But anyone who has looked at affirmative action policies, as far back as order 97(?) “forty acres and a mule” know that AA was a very restricted and targeted policy until liberal whites got a hold of it, including corporate whites. It was intended to address a very specific issue to a very specific problem. And I will say this nothing smacks of liberality more than the broad scathing falsity that citizenship is rooted in whiteness, a concept so broad, inept and full of loopholes and contradictions that it can only be supported by not being conservative. And yet this practice and thought is linked to conservatism so that its negative consequences is seen owned by them and by them alone.

    Conservatives find themselves betrayed by the very institutions that held core specific principles. The collapse of the traditional religious organizations to broader ethos and behavior, even rejected by Jesus — well, what’s a conservative to do when the spiritual authority changes its mind, and why divine authority and order ave come under intended attack. And why n my view, Christ trumps our institutions of faith and practice.

    It it questions such this really cause me to miss lecturing and teaching. The words required to cleanup what has become of political conservatism requires more tools and better writing skills than I employ in these exchanges. The republican party s attempting to define themselves in a rubber an uninflated balloon in which they there is no shape, the kind of environment liberals love — no specific anything so anything goes, wet cement, a constant state of heated tar. That’s not liberalism, that’s relativity, they are not the same thing.

    But it is one aspect that makes the current president ideal the relative world of politics today — liberals have finally met their equal from an opposing position. It helps that he spoke their language or at least engaged in their language to get by. Laugh.

    Support for family authority as reflected in school choice the tend for the conservative will generally lean to specifics. No men can’t us a woman’s restroom. If one must have this nonsense figure out the number of so called neutral restrooms that people can choose to use.
    ——————————————————

    “You’ve just defined liberalism. Anyone who uses the term “individual freedoms” is a liberal.

    Economic conservatism does not exist. It’s just liberalism. The only difference is that liberals want the liberal agenda to be paid for by taxation while conservatives want it to be paid for by magic.

    There is such a thing as social conservatism but it has no actual connection at all with economic conservatism.”

    Uhhhh, nonsense.

    The liberal corner you are attempting to assert here is unbridled liberality and I make it clear that is not possible. The Bill of Rights is all about defending the individual freedoms for US citizens. And in particular protecting them from state intrusion. The whole point of conservatism is prudence. That includes prudence on actions toward my expectation of others. The question is how far must my prudence extend. And that is the general debate regarding method. You get to run around naked in your private space. How that nakedness impacts or serves the community is open tom public discussion and participation. Individual freedoms exist within some orderly system and prudence dictates that you nakedness should remain a private matter. i would make the distinction between liberal and relative. They are not the same thing and that is what is in question. The cake baker should not be forced to serve a cultural event. That is individual freedom, well within the constitutional frame. And in this frame is where US citizens operate. Not to some universal schema outside the Constitution. Supporting individual freedoms is not the same thing as being a liberal. Over at TAC someone attempted to misalign the thoughts of John Stuart Mill to some liberal ethos, when in fact what Mr. Mill does is layout a process for determining the utility for maximizing freedoms. He does so by using very specific frames of arguments about how we come to understand truth. And there is very little relative assumption about how that is addressed. He even goes so far as make the a very curious distinction between how people pf faith regard truth and how they get their and how it might differ from those who have no faith or faiths not linked to christianity — he establishing the rules or the order to align polity that benefits all. Key — orderly process.

    The state cannot establish a faith and practice its citizens must follow. But clearly people of faith can participate in governance. Conservative, limiting per of government while maximizing individual choice of belief and participation.

    ——————————————–

    Your jump to economic is a tad baffling. I am going to ramble out my standard —

    Economic conservatism is predicated on fair and honest dealings.

    I am afraid your tad shallow here. And I going to be cautious because there are several strategies among those who call themselves conservative, but among conservatives despite the current government to economic expansive share —

    the economy is not yet predicated on government spending and taxation.

    They are two different issues. Conservatives would generally contend that the money you make should be held by you and not transferred to government. In that understanding conservatives readily acknowledge the need for taxes. The question is how much in taxes and for what ends. essential government services, a tricky bit of identification. The emotional crisis that occurred as the result of 9/11 has the the political leadership of both parties leaning heavily toward spending money on security, well on everything that doesn’t include protecting the country’s sovereignty. But that lends itself to the ethos of maintaining some order, though I would contend order abroad is worth nothing, if can’t maintain order, security of your own home. Nothing about the lean on more government is liberal, to the contrary in the environment over the last forty years. It has become increasingly concentrated both in government and in the economic environment. The marriage between our government and the wealthy is going to bring the country to head someday if the nexis keeps going. “Too big to fail” utter nonsense, too big restructures as routine and does so with tax dollars.

    Some conservatives, think the answer is for the system to become bankrupt and collapse so that government will have to shrink. Some think that under the current environment the best we can do is slow government growth and some think this is not an issue at all, that government spending has a trillions before its over extended (kind of nutty in my view – given that are in a constant of deficit spending. But I have not met even a single republican who believes in the tooth fairy to pay for government services and none who don’t agree that there should be cuts in spending.

    But first let’s make the distinction that government spending is not the economy. A liberal economy is one in which there are multiple income streams. It is not meant to describe an ethos regarding economic forces. And conservatives would advocate for as many independent income streams as possible so that people can enjoy — acquire the happiness of property be that property tangible or not.

    You want conservative economic thought —

    Stop measuring gdp by what is one the shelves and measure by actual ticket sales to the terminal user.

    Stop ignoring that national export numbers

    Stop counting all tax dollars as part of the economy except those for which are paid for services that are sold, i.e, visiting national parks and museums or the sale of product.

    Cease allowing public officials to own stock while in office.

  66. I agree that conservatives could use better arguments to make their case and set better examples.

    No doubt.

    excuse the windiness . . .
    ———————————————

    “Blacks rightly have a complaint with the GOP for Reagan bringing in all the crack into their neighborhoods even if all the local distribution was done by other blacks.”

    Save that blacks are certainly capable of making the choice to reject using and dealing the poison that was delivered on their doorstep. Cynical, wrong, abhorrent, vile and contemptible to destroy the lives of one’s fellows to the benefit os some foreign polity. Agreed.

    But upon delivery there is something to be said for one’s choice to say

    “No.”

  67. @MarkinLA

    Blaming Reagan for what GHW Bush was doing is like blaming W for what Cheney and his crew did. Reagan was pretty witless even before he lost his marbles to dementia. His VP just ran wild with his CIA operations, likely without Reagan’s knowledge.

  68. J1234 says:

    Inconvenient truth: The human species can exist without homosexuality. It can’t exist (and wouldn’t be here today) without heterosexuality. Because of this, heterosexuality and homosexuality aren’t just different versions of the same thing with no substantive distinction. Because it produces offspring, heterosexuality is uniquely purposeful in a way that homosexuality never could be and it shouldn’t take an enormous amount of intellectual integrity or insight to admit this.

    The progressive politics/gender studies industry, however, hasn’t enough integrity or insight to manage even this minuscule mental task. They default to an array of simplistic moral narratives, one of them being that all truth is counter-intuitive. They honestly think they can portray themselves as something akin to Galileo arguing for a truth that isn’t accessible through the eyes of common sense. This is a level of arrogance that conservatives should distance themselves from in a big way.

    Charlie Kirk, coming from a constitutionalist perspective, says that anything happening between two consenting adults is fine with him, but that’s a posturing acquiescence conveniently presented when appearing on stage with a gay conservative. A thinking person’s opinions don’t stop at the Constitution. That’s not what the Constitution was designed for.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  69. “Because it produces offspring, heterosexuality is uniquely purposeful in a way that homosexuality never could be and it shouldn’t take an enormous amount of intellectual integrity or insight to admit this.”

    I will go a step further, there’s no reason for any community to support it as anything uniquely beneficial — that even legal marriage should be out of bounds.

  70. “Charlie Kirk, coming from a constitutionalist perspective, says that anything happening between two consenting adults is fine with him, but that’s a posturing acquiescence conveniently presented when appearing on stage with a gay conservative.”

    And there is a line crossed, I don’t understand. It is not possible to a conservative and claim to to engage in same sex relational dynamics.

    The behavior so thoroughly rejects a fundamental grounding concerning males and females that there simply is no coming back on a claim of conservative ethos.

    It’s one thing to appear in the same venue as someone engaged in the behavior — but to accept that person is a conservative simply is a nonstarter.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  71. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    The people you list are WW2 “war babies”, born from about 1939-1944, who were too young to fully appreciate (let alone fight) WW2 (although some of them did fight in Vietnam), and too young to have been seriously affected by the Great Depression. They over-lap to some degree with the chronological Boomers, who formed the biggest fan-base of the war babies via sheer numbers, remember that the chronological Boomers vastly out-numbered the generations born during the Depression and WW2; popular music tastes by 1970 were controlled almost entirely by Boomers, and this only began to change in the late 1980’s when Gen X made heavy metal, alternative/college rock, and rap much more popular; most of the performing artists of the late 1980’s were Boomers, but the most successful had to appeal to Gen X since most Boomer cohorts had aged out of being pop music consumers.

    BTW, many artists of the post-1967 period were Boomers. Alice Cooper? A Boomer. Led Zeppelin? All Boomer. Kiss? All Boomer. Black Sabbath? All Boomer. Deep Purple? Mostly Boomer. AC/DC? All Boomer. The Who had three very late war babies (Townshend, Daltrey, Entwistle) and one true Boomer (Moon). Moon of course died first, while Entwistle OD’d on coke many years later. Many self-indulgent or very shallow artists of the post-1967 period were Boomers; as I’ve said before, many Boomer musicians died by their own hand before they reached the age of 60. Late 70’s disco and punk were made mostly by Boomers, and each genre was very hedonistic and/or nihilistic.

    The “war babies” were the defining performers of the late 1960’s, along with some earlier Silents and a handful of true Boomers. But it’s the Boomers themselves who worshiped the war babies to begin with. Nobody was forcing them to listen to the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, The Beach boys, etc., and then spend the subsequent decades claiming that war baby artists were the best. And keep in mind that some Boomers still glom onto the war babies, whereas Gen X has always understood that they had minimal involvement in actually creating the music of the 1980’s. Consumption is one side, creation is the other.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  72. Feryl says: • Website
    @Lot

    This poll doesn’t show the increased acceptance in the 70s, probably because of small sample size when the question was first asked.

    According to the GSS, pre-Boomers found homosexuality to be morally wrong to a large degree in the 70’s and 80’s. Boomers were more pro-gay than older people were in the 1970’s, and somewhat less pro gay in the 80’s. All generations became much more pro gay starting around 1993. There was a vanguard of often rather young people who broke with tradition in the 1970’s, but this didn’t really seep into the mainstream fully until the mid-90’s.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  73. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    The people you list are WW2 “war babies”, born from about 1939-1944, who were too young to fully appreciate (let alone fight) WW2 (although some of them did fight in Vietnam), and too young to have been seriously affected by the Great Depression.

    Yes, and they’re a fascinating (if depressing) cultural phenomenon. It was a fairly small birth cohort but it produced a staggering number of cultural destroyers. They were the people who really took a wrecking ball to our culture.

    So what was it about that birth cohort that made it so toxic? You’ve suggested the Great Depression and you may be right. Missing the Great Depression might be the key. They were also in exactly the right age bracket to be fanatical JFK-worshippers (and in Britain to be very excited by the election of Harold Wilson after 15 years of Tory government). Most actual Boomers were too young to really share in the JFK cult in a big way. It was war babies who cried when JFK was shot.

    And they were also at the right age to become political activists when the Vietnam War became a big thing.

    They were also the first cohort to grow up with rock’n’roll. And with the surf culture. In fact with the whole Youth Culture thing. And they grew up with the counter-culture – they grew up at a time when beatniks were a thing. They were the first to grow up under the shadow of nuclear war. They remember the civic defence drills of the 50s – you hide under a school desk when the bombs start dropping.

    Their formative years coincided with crucial political events.

    The war babies would repay further study.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Feryl
  74. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    Boomers were more pro-gay than older people were in the 1970’s

    I’m a late Boomer and I can assure you that when I was in high school it was most definitely not OK to be gay. It was also most definitely not OK to take drugs.

    Of course cultural degeneracy started in the US and was probably further advanced there than in Australia in the 60s.

    One thing I do remember vividly from my high school years in the late 60s/early 70s is that the cultural decadence/moral relativism was pushed quite aggressively by our teachers. A large proportion of whom would have been from the 1935-1945 “war baby” birth cohort.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  75. @Mark G.

    Mark G. wrote:

    Libertarianism as a political philosophy would merely say you shouldn’t throw homosexuals in prison. In theory you could hold the position that homosexuality should be legal while at the same time still saying it is morally wrong.

    In theory, yes. In practice, the most prominent libertarian organizations and institutions — Cato Institute, reason magazine, the Libertarian Party — would, I fear, be appalled by your perspective.

    Here and there you can find a few “libertarian” groups flying the old flag of “free but also free to judge” — notably the Mises Institute and its associates, such as LewRockwell.com.

    I’m with you, Mark, but I’m afraid that to the general public “libertarian” means Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, not guys with whom I wish to associate.

  76. anon[313] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    So what was it about that birth cohort that made it so toxic?

    First American cohort to receive Frankfurt school teaching on a large scale?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  77. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon

    So what was it about that birth cohort that made it so toxic?

    First American cohort to receive Frankfurt school teaching on a large scale?

    Not really. The war babies (or 1935-45 birth cohort) grew up at a time before Frankfurt school teaching on a large scale was a major thing. They did grow up marinated in old-fashioned liberalism, which is arguably just as bad.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  78. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    I’m a late Boomer and I can assure you that when I was in high school it was most definitely not OK to be gay. It was also most definitely not OK to take drugs.

    I didn’t say it was popular ideology among anyone at that time, I’m saying that youth was more accepting of it than their elders were at that time. 1993 is when all generations (and ideologies) became much more tolerant of gays

    America has had a teen drug use survey dating back to the late 70’s. 1979 was the peak of pot use, while “hard” stimulants (speed and coke) were most popular in the early 80’s (heroin use peaked in 1995, although even in ’95 relatively few teens were willing to try heroin, thank God). The 1968/1969 birth cohort should be credited with doing a lot to start the rejection of drugs, being that 1986 was the beginning of a major decline in drug use among high school seniors. The 1961-1967 cohort is perhaps the most troubled of all; I saved a chart detailing cohort mortality that someone posted on Sailer’s blog a while ago, and that cohort along with the circa 1955-1960 one is dying young(ish) at an alarming rate. It can’t be emphasized enough that the youth culture (Boomer and early Gen X alike) of circa 1967-1985 was terribly irresponsible, and many indicators of reckless behavior peaked around 1980 (the modern murder rate also peaked in 1980). But if you were 23 years old in 1970 you weren’t going to be as damaged as a 17 year old in 1980 was. The late 70’s and early 80’s really were nuts, rife with crime (among all demographics, not just black teenagers and young adults as has been the norm since the late 80’s), drugs, alcohol abuse, teen runaways, and so forth.

    Going by the cultural cycle theory, the late 60’s-early 80’s was an “awakening” of hostility toward tradition and authority. GIs and Silents, in the mid-1940’s-early 1960’s, typically dressed well, followed the rules, married young,and chose to began careers with workplace loyalty and pensions in mind. Silents began to turn their back on this culture as the 60’s went on, and Boomers often looked up to these “trail blazers” as role models. Boomers rejected suits and ties, rejected early marriage and/or reproduction, and rejected what they thought was “tradition” in religion, politics, lifestyles, etc.

    The “unraveling” (widening distrust and cynicism) of circa 1986-2003 coincided with rising birth rates among Boomers and X-ers. Boomers and X-ers increasingly rejected drugs, sex, and New Age philosophy, and taught “stranger danger” to Millennials in the late 80’s and 90’s, as several high profile child abductions and known (or assumed) murders were heavily publicized. Since the very pessimistic Boomer and early X-er generations always emphasize the negative, since the late 80’s it’s been poorly understood that all measures of behavior, among all generations, have gradually been improving since 1981. Note that this doesn’t mean we are less corrupt, since corruption is predicated on cycles of elitism rather than on cycles of cautious behavior. Elites were much less corrupt in the 60’s and 70’s than they are now. See Turchin’s models showing that the English speaking countries by circa 1990 began to emphasize credentialism and conspicuous consumption while welfare of the working and poor classes has been neglected. Elite status in the 60’s and 70’s was obtained somewhat easily precisely because few people sought it, or desperately hung onto it. Nowadays legions of geezers refuse to retire (because they don’t want a status reduction that would come about due to a loss of occupational income) while young people have seen college tuition rise into the stratosphere after circa 2000 because so many people are desperate to attain credentials. Immigration levels have also soared since 1990 because domestic elites benefit from this arrangement, and of course many immigrants themselves seek a “better life” (AKA a status boost).

    I think political and cultural/behavioral cycles are distinct from each other, BTW. We had better leadership in 1980, but nobody in their right mind would want to restore the behavioral trends of 1980.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  79. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    Not really. The war babies (or 1935-45 birth cohort) grew up at a time before Frankfurt school teaching on a large scale was a major thing. They did grow up marinated in old-fashioned liberalism, which is arguably just as bad.

    I think it’s more that post-WW2 prosperity led a a lot of people to believe in a lot of foolish things. “White privilege”, the “culture of critique”, etc. are a joke to people who have real problems and responsibilities. The Missionary, Lost, and GI Generation worked their asses off to create the mid-20th century prosperity that Silents and Boomers increasingly took for granted. Silents, esp. the later born ones, always felt insecure about their “junior partner” status when the GI Generation ruled the roost in the 1950’s and 60’s. The oldest Silents were just 20 years old in 1945 when the war ended and the re-build of the West commenced with the overall tone set by the GIs who were admired by their Missionary and Lost parents. The “thirty glorious years” of circa 1945-1975 were dominated by GIs. Silents, however, felt out of place in the GI machine (indeed, the accusation of being a “cog in the machine” was precisely aimed at the GI Gen’s conformity to blandly functional collectivism) and began to focus on other goals. The fields of Law and Psychiatry witnessed soaring Silent enrollment by the 1970’s. Silents dominated cultural criticism by 1970, as GIs were almost completely disinterested in art and aesthetics. Silents became the dominant radio DJs, talk show hosts, and interviewers of the 1970’s and 80’s; stolid GIs never really had much time for conversation or reflection, which Silents and Boomers never cared for.

    Per Neil Howe, the Silents were a generation of listeners and emotional analysts. The GIs were boringly competent soldiers and scientists. The Boomers were preachy spiritualists and headstrong hell raisers. Howe noted that older adults by 1967 had noticed that the Boomers possessed an ego and confidence that far surpassed their technical knowledge of the details, not to mention their social skills. Under GIs, we didn’t talk, we did things. Under Silents, we talked about complexity and difficulty of many things, while our ability to actually do anything waned. Under Boomers, we’ve seen ideological and emotional kamikazes who seem to want political and economic chaos and bickering. I don’t expect the situation to improve much until later X-ers get more clout. Too many Boomers and very early X-ers are agents of chaos.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  80. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    They were also the first cohort to grow up with rock’n’roll. And with the surf culture. In fact with the whole Youth Culture thing. And they grew up with the counter-culture – they grew up at a time when beatniks were a thing. They were the first to grow up under the shadow of nuclear war. They remember the civic defence drills of the 50s – you hide under a school desk when the bombs start dropping.

    Elvis, born in the late 30’s, was indeed the “king of rock and roll”.

    That being said, the ugliest and most nihilistic (or just plain shallow) expressions of “rock and roll” were often championed by Boomers in the 70’s and beyond. Alice Cooper, the Sex Pistols, Nirvana etc. were detested by most Silents, who thought, correctly so, that much of Boomer and X-er culture was crude and obnoxious.

    It’s true that war babies were behind most of the late 60’s and 70’s movies that were often quite nasty, however it was Boomers who made these movies hits, since the Boomers far out-numbered older generations in terms of the viewing audience. And Boomer film-makers in the 1980’s-present have never shied away from whatever awful trend has come down the pike (be it increased swearing, shaky cam, or whatever). And to this day war babies and Boomers dominate Hollywood (see: increased elitism and grasping for status that leads to gerontocracy) and it’s only been in the last 5 or so years that Gen X has actually been given that many directing jobs, probably because so many Silent directors died off in the 2010’s and can no longer be given them.

    Best director Oscars since 1960:

    GIs (born before 1925): 11
    Silents (1925-1945): 23
    Boomers (1946-1964): 23
    X-ers (1965-1980): 3
    Millennials (1981-1995): 1

    So basically, the creation side of pop culture since 1960 has been dominated by Silents and Boomers. Status wise, high level positions everywhere, Hollywood included, have been increasingly monopolized by Silents and Boomers since the 1970’s. A result of which is that X-ers and Millennials to a large extent roll their eyes and don’t even bother to try and compete with the generations who came of age in the mid-20th century. Thus, the “slacker” criticism that youth have often been subjected to since the late 80’s.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  81. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    I think political and cultural/behavioral cycles are distinct from each other, BTW. We had better leadership in 1980, but nobody in their right mind would want to restore the behavioral trends of 1980.

    What you’ve actually established beyond doubt is that generational theories have no explanatory value. Various changes have occurred in attitudes towards drugs, homosexuality, promiscuity, divorce and high-risk behaviours in general. There have been changes in the types and levels of corruption and in the quality of political leadership. There have been fluctuations in levels of hopefulness and pessimism. There have been ups and downs in the level of social nihilism.

    But none of these trends can be made to match up with generations in any meaningful way.

    Society has changed radically, mostly not for the better, but the various trendlines are all over the place. Something has certainly been happening but it has nothing to do with peculiar characteristics of generations.

    Since the very pessimistic Boomer and early X-er generations always emphasize the negative

    They do? I have never heard people in my age bracket whine as much and as consistently as younger age brackets do. If the people of the right age to be given the meaningless label of Boomers had a fault it was that they were too wildly optimistic.

  82. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    I think it’s more that post-WW2 prosperity led a a lot of people to believe in a lot of foolish things. “White privilege”, the “culture of critique”, etc. are a joke to people who have real problems and responsibilities.

    That’s true enough. But that’s an economic explanation rather than a generational one. Periods of prosperity certainly lead to foolishness and an obsession with the trivial – the 1920s, the early postwar period, the 80s.

    It’s also a class explanation. The upper middle classes and the upper classes tend to indulge themselves in imaginary problems. The struggling lower classes worry about real problems.

    It makes no difference which “generation” people belong to. The over-educated over-prosperous classes worry about status and they worry about social respectability and they worry about global warming and about trannies having their feelings hurt. The struggling classes worry about paying the rent and about whether their kids will ever be able to get jobs or afford to buy a house.

    Rich Millennials worry about the fate of the polar bears. Poor Boomers worry about whether they’ll be able to pay their electricity bill or not.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  83. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    That being said, the ugliest and most nihilistic (or just plain shallow) expressions of “rock and roll” were often championed by Boomers in the 70’s and beyond. Alice Cooper, the Sex Pistols, Nirvana etc. were detested by most Silents, who thought, correctly so, that much of Boomer and X-er culture was crude and obnoxious.

    Again you’re all over the place with the generation thing. The Sex Pistols and punk rock in general were loathed by most “Boomers” – punk appealed to a very narrow birth cohort (roughly 1955 to maybe 1962). And no Boomer ever had any time for Nirvana and crybaby Kurt Cobain.

    Silents and very early Boomers liked The Beatles – and can you get any shallower than John Lennon? The 1950-55 cohort seemed to like acid rock and the Grateful Dead and the Jefferson Airplane – and can you get any shallower than the Jefferson Airplane?

    As for ugly and nihilistic, have you ever listened to any hip-hop?

    Even musical tastes can’t be categorised by generation.

    It’s true that war babies were behind most of the late 60’s and 70’s movies that were often quite nasty, however it was Boomers who made these movies hits

    Hollywood degeneracy started to hit top gear around 1967 (Bonnie and Clyde being Exhibit One). It had nothing to do with generations. It was entirely the result of the abandonment of the Production Code. And the Production Code had effectively ceased to be enforced by the mid-60s. Hollywood degeneracy was something we can thank the Silents for, both as creators and consumers.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  84. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    As for ugly and nihilistic, have you ever listened to any hip-hop?

    1990’s rap was trash for blacks and really low-brow/proleish whites (anyone who bought used CDs in the 90’s and 2000’s can tell you that rap CDs were typically the most scuffed up). Many fairly large metro areas struggle to support rap stations (unless the demographics of the metro area are overwhelmingly black) because their listener base is so low income.

    Rap peaked in popularity in the 90’s but has gradually been fading ever since. Gen Z mostly gravitates towards corporate pop. Certainly, the ultra-thuggish flavor of mid-90’s rap is mostly long gone even though rap in general is pretty low-brow even at it’s least offensive.

    Again you’re all over the place with the generation thing. The Sex Pistols and punk rock in general were loathed by most “Boomers” – punk appealed to a very narrow birth cohort (roughly 1955 to maybe 1962). And no Boomer ever had any time for Nirvana and crybaby Kurt Cobain.

    My Boomer dad listened to a Nirvana live CD for quite some time, though a younger girlfriend turned him toward it if memory serves. Rush drummer Neil Peart, an early Boomer no less, regularly listened to Nirvana according to his own autobiography. Nirvana influenced a lot of Boomer musicians in the 1990’s, for better or for worse. And the same cultural gate-keepers who took over in 1967 (and still haven’t gone away aside from the ones who literally died….)quickly anointed Cobain a spokesman for his generation….Something that both Cobain and Gen X-ers in general bristled at (many X-ers dislike being thought of as a generation with many commonalities). This was after said gate-keepers routinely dismissed 1980’s pop music and heavy metal as garbage not worth more than 5 seconds of serious thought. Nirvana was elevated as “real” and “raw”, the new frontier of rock music that purged all the “frivolity” and fancy-pants showmanship of late 70’s and 80’s rock music. The same air-heads who claimed rock was best in the 1960’s were now saying that “pure” rock was “finally” back. Queen, Journey, Iron Maiden etc. had to put the leather pants away. The war baby airheads just cannot stand the idea of theatrical entertainment. To them, “serious art” means projecting one’s “introspection” unfiltered out to the masses. It’s typically very late Boomers and late X-ers who have the least pretentious musical tastes. The former was too young to listen to the war baby airheads in the 60’s, the latter was too young to fully buy into what the gate keepers were overhyping in the 1990’s. Early X-ers can have pretty poor taste, ala the war babies, because early X-ers were the primary consumers of the early 90’s “alt-rock” revolution when “rock stars” started dressing like bums and moaning about PC crap. You really don’t want to be an impressionable age when overhyped and/or preachy artists are being sold as the new “rock revolution”.

    In America, punk was a niche phenomena as an overall commercial enterprise, however the 1955-1967 cohort was influenced quite a bit by the attitude of punk and many later Boomer musicians, who came to prominence in the 80’s and 90’s, said they were inspired by punk. Thrash metal, college rock, grunge, industrial, etc. all involved late Boomers to a substantial degree who said that punk proved to them that big labels and big budgets weren’t a necessity for making interesting music.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  85. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    That’s true enough. But that’s an economic explanation rather than a generational one. Periods of prosperity certainly lead to foolishness and an obsession with the trivial – the 1920s, the early postwar period, the 80s.

    The 1980’s had a strange duality that many people don’t really understand. Countless movies and songs were made based on the fear of, or imagined depiction of, nuclear war and/or the aftermath. Movies often referenced street crime and drug epidemics. Slasher movies were all the rage until about 1989. Movies like Robocop and Cobra (as well as further Dirty Harry sequels) all exploited the public’s frustration with a system that no longer seemed to work anymore. The flip-side was the desperation of some, mostly conservative types, to act as if we were in a much better place than we were in the 60’s and 70’s. Don’t worry, be happy. There’s a contradictory and slippery tone to 80’s culture.

    It really was the 1990’s that were the inane tabloid decade, the “family values” decade. 24/7 TV news over-hyped the relatively insubstantial political and social concerns of the day. The OJ Trial and the Monica Lewinsky escapade sucked up tons of cultural energy, whereas the 60’s had the Tet Offensive and the many urban riots and assassinations. The 1970’s had Watergate, exploding drug use and promiscuity, and the mainstreaming of women in the workforce. The 1980’s had serious cold war tension, Iran-Contra and related issues in Latin America, the Mariel boat lift and ensuing drug trade excesses (and resulting law enforcement responses), and the early 1980’s was the last period where the mainstream media regularly, and soberly, acknowledged serious economic problems among the lower classes.

    The 1990’s also saw massive consolidation in many sectors, particularly the media, a major reason why news coverage became so awful in the 90’s and has never recovered since. Too much power in too few hands. Not helping matters is the public cheering on massive bubbles in the late 90’s, McMansions and all. I follow a guy whose written books on horror movies, and he says that the 1990’s were the worst decade for these movies. He says things got too corporate, and perhaps, just perhaps, there just wasn’t that much going on in 1990’s culture. Artists need to be inspired by something, and in the 90’s there just wasn’t much to go off of.

    Also, the 1920’s weren’t that bad. It was the Progressive era. We were doing some things better by that point.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  86. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    My Boomer dad listened to a Nirvana live CD for quite some time, though a younger girlfriend turned him toward it if memory serves.

    With all due respect to your dad, if a guy is lucky enough to snare a younger girlfriend he’s going to listen to whatever music she likes in order to impress her ad he’s going to swear blind that he loves her taste in music.

    The war baby airheads just cannot stand the idea of theatrical entertainment. To them, “serious art” means projecting one’s “introspection” unfiltered out to the masses.

    Yeah, to a certain extent I’d agree. Although the Rolling Stones could be a bit on the theatrical side. And they weren’t renowned for their introspection. But on the whole I’d agree.

    In America, punk was a niche phenomena as an overall commercial enterprise, however the 1955-1967 cohort was influenced quite a bit by the attitude of punk and many later Boomer musicians, who came to prominence in the 80’s and 90’s, said they were inspired by punk.

    I was thinking of Britain and Australia where punk got going around ’76 and was pretty much burnt out by ’79 or ’80. It seemed to start and end a couple of years later in the US (even if it was arguably Americans who invented it). So yes, in the US it would have been roughly those born ’57 to ’64 rather than ’55 to ’62.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  87. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Feryl

    I follow a guy whose written books on horror movies, and he says that the 1990’s were the worst decade for these movies. He says things got too corporate, and perhaps, just perhaps, there just wasn’t that much going on in 1990’s culture.

    By the 90s low-budget movies had been squeezed out. In fact they were pretty much squeezed out by the mid-80s. There was no room for crazy mavericks and for small companies. The small studios like Hammer were gone before the end of the 70s. From the 50s to the late 70s low-budget film-making was where the exciting stuff was happening.

    Home video and porn destroyed low-budget film-making. Without the drive-in and grindhouse markets there was no longer any market at all for fascinatingly weird low-budget films.

    The same thing happened in Europe – there were so many strange and wonderful and crazy low-budget movies made in places like Italy, Germany and Spain from the 50s to the 70s. By the end of the 70s they were gone.

    Even in Australia the really interesting stuff, the ozploitation movies, had largely disappeared by the 80s.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  88. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    By the 90s low-budget movies had been squeezed out. In fact they were pretty much squeezed out by the mid-80s. There was no room for crazy mavericks and for small companies. The small studios like Hammer were gone before the end of the 70s. From the 50s to the late 70s low-budget film-making was where the exciting stuff was happening.

    Mid-budgetmovies peaked in the 70’s and 80’s, and then began to fade out in the 1990’s, and are almost completely dead now. Even in the late 80’s, some “low-budget” movies could still afford to hire photography directors and composers who knew what they were doing. Smaller companies? New Line, Carolco, Orion and Hemdale were behind some of the better movies of the 80’s and very early 90’s. Stuff like First Blood, Terminator, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Return of the Living Dead, Platoon, Robocop, and Silence of the Lambs. The peak of “independent” production was definitely the 70’s and very early 80’s, but the fucking idiotic propaganda that the 1990’s was the peak of independent film has to be fought against, given that the 1990’s was when media consolidation really took off big time. Miramax was basically an adjunct of Disney! By the mid-90’s, AIP, Avco-Embassy, New World Pictures, and the aforementioned Carolco, Orion, and Hemdale had all been merged into the big studios. BTW, Halloween and Friday the 13th were also independently produced movies, with Halloween also being distributed by an independent (Compass Int.).

    Home video and porn destroyed low-budget film-making. Without the drive-in and grindhouse markets there was no longer any market at all for fascinatingly weird low-budget films.

    Widescreen photography became less prevalent by 1986 due to the rapid growth of home video. Nevertheless, the main reason movies got more boring in the 1990’s was because the 90’s were a lame decade in general. Still, technically speaking, I love the color film stock of the late 80’s and early 90’s, maybe because I was a kid back then. Once you get over the irritating hype that surrounded 90’s “Independent film” (a development not unlike the vastly overhyped “alt-rock” scene of the early 90’s), there just isn’t that much going on thematically or aesthetically in 1990’s movies, aside from the terrific color film stock of the early 90’s and how well it was put to use by that era’s cinematographers. And the mainstream block buster movies of the early-mid 90’s are mostly total garbage (Independence Day etc.), with less flavor and grit than even the 60’s or 80’s, let alone the 70’s. No wonder people hyped “Independent film” when so many of the erotic thrillers, action movies, and comedies were simultaneously bland and stupid (you could say some 80’s movies were stupid, but they certainly weren’t bland). But, we were at an impasse in the 90’s and there just wasn’t much to inspire anyone. Does anyone think that Van Damme, Schwarzenegger, or Stallone made their best movies in the 90’s? Nope. 1985-1989 was the peak of the more testosterone than brains sort of action movie that many people fondly remember. Their 90’s movies seem more gimmicky and more half-hearted in execution, as if they were embarrassed by the bluntness of their late 80’s work.

    The same thing happened in Europe – there were so many strange and wonderful and crazy low-budget movies made in places like Italy, Germany and Spain from the 50s to the 70s. By the end of the 70s they were gone.

    Even in Australia the really interesting stuff, the ozploitation movies, had largely disappeared by the 80s.

    I’d have to agree here, for some reason funding for European (and Australian) movies really seemed to dry up by the mid-80’s (did the authorities start to crack down on tax shelter abuse? I know that a lot of Canadian made movies of the 70’s and early 80’s turned out to be tax shelters, and Canadian production declined in the mid-late 80’s after the authorities cracked down). Italy soldiered on for a bit longer, as 1980-1985 did produce quite a glut of sometimes interesting horror movies. But after 1985, the money began to run low and the acting, art direction, music, etc. all got worse.

  89. Feryl says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    I was thinking of Britain and Australia where punk got going around ’76 and was pretty much burnt out by ’79 or ’80. It seemed to start and end a couple of years later in the US (even if it was arguably Americans who invented it). So yes, in the US it would have been roughly those born ’57 to ’64 rather than ’55 to ’62.

    The major American bands (aside from, duh, the Ramones) were Black Flag, The Misfits, The Dead Kennedys, and….The Circle Jerks? Their creative and commercial peak was about 1979-1982, with heavy metal (Dio, Iron Maiden, Ozzy, Judas Priest, Metallica, Van Halen, and the Scorpions primarily) and New Wave (Duran Duran, the Police, The Human League, The Fixx, Depeche Mode, The Cure, Howard Jones, A Flock of Seagulls, Talk Talk, the Eurythmics, among others), and the holy trinity of 80’s pop (Micheal Jackson, Prince, Madonna) totally surpassing all “70’s type music” (including punk) in 1983-1984. 1983-1985 really was the greatest period for music ever, and the earlier 80’s were pretty good too. No rap stinking up the charts yet either (that would began to happen in 1986).

    I think the ’65-’67 cohort was still pretty into punk because this cohort was a big player in the 90’s alt -rock explosion, and these artists frequently mentioned punk as in influence. And Black Flag’s weird “experimental” stuff from the mid-80’s has often been cited as proto-grunge. It’s the ’68-’80 cohort that was too young to experience the peak of American punk (’79-’82); this was the “MTV generation” who embraced New Wave, melodic heavy metal (and it’s more aggressive counterpart, thrash metal), and the 1980’s “college rock” (bands like U2 and REM) scene that pre-figured 90’s alternative.

    With all due respect to your dad, if a guy is lucky enough to snare a younger girlfriend he’s going to listen to whatever music she likes in order to impress her ad he’s going to swear blind that he loves her taste in music.

    He was still listening to it well after she left him.

    Yeah, to a certain extent I’d agree. Although the Rolling Stones could be a bit on the theatrical side. And they weren’t renowned for their introspection. But on the whole I’d agree.

    The Stones were kinda proto-glam in their flamboyant image, and no, the lyrics weren’t for the most part all that self-consciously “deep” or earnest. And those are big reasons why they had a big impact on late 70’s “classic”/arena rock (Aerosmith, Ted Nugent, Foghat, etc.) which in turn would eventually give way to 80’s hair metal (Motley Crue, Def Leppard, GNR, etc.). Just like how Disco gave way to New Wave and dance synth pop of the 80’s. The 80’s, musically speaking, were a heightened version of the late 70’s.

    The “inward looking” and/or politically oriented approach that the war babies/gate keepers celebrated so much from 1967-1974 (and then loudly complained when the zeitgeist became more fun loving after 1975), and have always held up as the ideal form of pop music, has always gotten on my nerves. It can be so dry and lugubrious. Just F’n relax and entertain us for a change.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS