Despite what a few elderly Mr. Naturals may say about abolishing “capitalism,” we’re not going to have an advanced economy without a coherent banking system, and by advanced economy I mean one in which the lights stay on. By coherent I mean a system that is able to deploy accumulated wealth for productive purposes, in the service of continuing civilization. (And, yes, I know that the followers of Daniel Quinn are not so sure that civilization is worth the trouble, but unless you support the killing-off of about six billion humans right away, things on Earth are not favorably disposed just now for a return to hunting-and-gathering.)

I would hasten to cut through the fog of despair to reassert — for the thousandth time — that a true American perestroika is possible, if the public could overcome the plague of cognitive dissonance sweeping the land and form a consensus for action that comports with reality’s agenda. But that is looking less and less likely. Instead, what we see is a rush into delusion, seasoned with grievance and gall. Spectacles like last weekend’s march on Washington don’t happen for no reason, of course. From where I sit, the uproar can be attributed to comprehensively bad American leadership, a crisis in authority and legitimacy that has left a functional vacuum in every executive office throughout the land — from the White House to the state houses, to the lairs of the CEOs, to the towers of the deans and department chairs, to the glitzy sets of the nightly news deliverers, to the makeshift quarters of the NGO chiefs. In former times, clueless and impotent leaders stuck their heads in the sand. Nowadays, with pandemic narcissism abroad in the land, the heads are more usually inserted into the aperture that leads into the large bowel….

But I indulge in diverting objurgation when I should perhaps explain this American perestroika more clearly. The Russian word roughly translates to “restructuring.” They flubbed it in 1989 because their system was too ossified and too far gone — though history and circumstance eventually did it for them. A similar outcome is possible here, too, in which things just have to completely fall apart before emergent reorganization occurs. But you can be sure that if we allow this to happen, an awful lot of things will get smashed along the way, including lives, careers, families, property, and cherished institutions.

This monster we call the economy is not just an endless series of charts and graphs — it’s how we live, and that has to change, whether we like it or not. Now, it is obviously a huge problem that a majority of Americans don’t like the idea. If they were true patriots, instead of overfed cowards and sado-masochists, they’d be inspired by the prospect. But something terrible has happened to our national character since the triumphal glow of World War Two wore off. I just hope that the Palinites and the myrmidons of Glen Beck don’t destroy what’s left of this country in a WWF-style “revolution.” In the best societies, such are marginalized by a kinder and sturdier consensus about justice. In America today, the center is not holding because there is no center.

American perestroika really boils down to this: we have to rescale the activities of daily life to a level consistent with the mandates of the future, especially the ones having to do with available energy and capital. We have to dismantle things that have no future and rebuild things that will allow daily life to function. We have to say goodbye to big box shopping and rebuild Main Street. More people will be needed to work in farming and fewer in tourism, public relations, gambling, and party planning. We have to make some basic useful products in this country again. We have to systematically decommission suburbia and reactivate our small towns and small cities. We have to prepare for the contraction of our large cities. We have to let the sun set on Happy Motoring and rebuild our trains, transit systems, harbors, and inland waterways. We have to reorganize schooling at a much more modest level. We have to close down most of the overseas military bases we’re operating and conclude our wars in Asia. Mostly, we have to recover a national sense of common purpose and common decency. There is obviously a lot of work to do in the list above, which could translate into paychecks and careers — but not if we direct all our resources into propping up the failing structures of yesterday.

The most dangerous illusion, of course, is a belief that we can return to a hyped up turbo debt “consumer” economy — and perhaps the most disappointing thing about Barack Obama, is his incessant cheerleading for a “recovery” to what is already lost and unrecoverable. The man who ran for office on “change” doesn’t really have the stomach for it. But, of course, events are in the driver’s seat now, not personalities, even charming ones. I’d venture to say that if Mr. Obama thinks he’s seen a crisis, and gotten through it, then he ain’t seen nothin’ yet. We are for sure not returning to the kind of credit orgy that made the last twenty years such a nauseating spectacle — of which, by the way, the misfeasances and wretched excesses of Wall Street were just one manifestation.

Some theorists out there say that economy follows mood, not vice-versa, and that the anger and sourness on display around the USA, in events like the weekend Washington march, is a clear sign that tectonic shifts in the structures of everyday life are sure to follow. There are too many truly good and intelligent people in this country, to leave our fate to the Palins and the Glen Becks [and Obamas—ed.] But the good people had better man up and start telling the truth with some conviction that the truth matters.

Regards,
James Howard Kunstler

September 17, 2009

Reality Receding Across America was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

That could definitely give one pause for thought.  What is worth risking dying for?  Not hasty, ill-thought-out words.  Not starting a squabble over someone whipping into a parking place you had first claim to.  Not rancorous accusations to injure a political opponent.

Dueling obliges men to be courteous.  Duels reduced crimes of passion and cowardly attacks.  Drive-by shootings, assault and battery, arsenic in the soup, and hiring hit men should remain illegal, but restoring dueling would be a simple means to obtain redress for grievances which did not require lawyers and would ensure decorum.

One cause of senseless violence is the inability to combat the true causes of ire, justified or not.  (Consider the enormous spike in the incidence of battered women on Super Bowl Sunday.)   No more would the annoyed have to content themselves with demonstrating that they still had their bow fingers in a gesture that goes back to Agincourt or blustering obscenities; a simple warning of lifting a cautionary right index finger an inch upwards quietly would convey no insult or aggressive intent, simply an indication that one was prepared to back words with deeds.  It would calm tempers and foster courtesy.

There was once clear recourse to an assault on one’s honor, and never mind that I don’t think ladies ever fought duels.  This is the 21st century; those who are so inclined should certainly be allowed to participate.   Last March I was insulted egregiously and brutally.  There were no extenuating circumstances.

I regained my sense of humor by flicking a yellowing kid glove contemptuously across the lout’s face mentally and sneering, “You, sirrah, are a coward, a boor, and a liar.  In the unlikely event you can find a gentleman to act for you, my seconds are…” The officious oaf might have felt better had he been able to suggest a bout of fisticuffs, since he felt I had wronged him, but our society does not allow men to strike females; I felt better thinking of meeting him on equal terms, thus allowing him true freedom of expression.  He would have my permission to say anything he dared in a world where I could call him out over his words.

I then worked off my frustrations and righteous fury writing this essay (which I am sending Gary in the hope that he will find it similarly salubrious.  I hope that you, dear reader, will find it assuages a bit of the outrage we felt over the unconscionable insult to Gary Gibson recently.), after which I solved the “problem” quietly and calmly, by informing the lowlife scum, through a third party, that I had not been offered and would not have accepted an honorary office he had been and did, which isn’t much of an explanation but all you need to know.

Duels are not about violence but to promote kindness, dulcet tones, and careful courtesy. Insult or injure another at your peril knowing that if you do not retract after several opportunities you will face the consequences.  Most duels were not killing matters.

A public challenge is resolution attempt number one.  My assailant could decide that he preferred to apologize, and custom would oblige me to accept.  My honor would be cleansed, and he would think before erring again.

Having demonstrated his lack of sense and manners already, in due course the oaf would find two others to act for him, and they would call upon my seconds with the laudable object of seeing if they could induce the pair of us to calm down.  The first duty of seconds is to settle the conflict without anyone having to get up at dawn followed by blood under the dueling oaks.  He might retract his words, and I would be stymied although lusting for retribution.  The rules are the rules. The challenged party has only two choices:  fight, or apologize. The offended party must be satisfied with a public apology if one is proffered.  No brawls, punctilio, and a cooling off period.

Having exhausted peace efforts, the seconds set up a time and place, allowing the principles to reflect again. The challenged party has the right to name the weapons.  One would not necessarily have to be a lily-livered poltroon to question the wisdom of facing another at twenty paces with pistols, closer up with cold steel (Hey, I had a few fencing lessons back about 1960, I’m game.), or even the Ivanhoe thing of “I bear mace and chain this day!”  Even a brave man might realize that the little lady is really, really upset, and perhaps an apology is in order.

Whoops of laughter, but I think I could take him with raw steel or a .22.  Shades of ERB, Sir Walter Scott, and Anthony Hope, “NO man calls me a ___and lives!”  Nobody calls me a foul name with impunity even if I am not allowed to demand satisfaction.  By glory, I’ll make his name a hissing and a byword, that I will.  Me Irish dander is up, laddies, and no man insults me honor, me man, and me butler, uh, Scot free.  (Put it this way:  he started with the names Carrie Prejean has been called and proceeded to my appearance, character, and lifestyle!  I don’t suppose I have ever been so astounded or outraged in my life.  His was a splendidly vindictive e-mail in terms of vituperation, although unwise, destructive, and devoid of facts.)

All should find it sobering to ponder whether they can shoot faster and straighter than another.  Cold smile.  I have a framed target that could make a braver man consider saying publicly, “Dear lady, I apologize profoundly for my ungentlemanly conduct.”

I was outraged enough to chance taking a slug for the pleasure of shooting at him were it possible.  I know just how Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr felt!  No, I would not “delope,” or fire into the air, tacit admission that my cause was not just or that I was at fault…and he might be uncertain that I would accept the implicit apology if he did so.  The rules still give me my one shot at him if he does!  No need to kill him…kneecapping would have been just barely on the wrong side of “excessive”…a clean, painful wound through the thigh, perhaps…

There are other benefits to Hamilton’s solution.  If I dispatched the villain or gave him a singular distaste for dueling he would never insult another, and he would remain a good object lesson for the benefits of courtly behavior and reasoned words.  If not…he might find himself challenged by several, starting with my seconds, both of whom he insulted in his attempt to hurt me.  I doubt he wanted to vent his frustrations enough to have to defend his behavior thrice upon the field of honor, and if he did, I would have been at his service first had it been legal.  That is not a privilege I would yield to big, strong, protective men.  I would have first call on his liver and his lights in a civilized world.

We would even solve part of the economic crisis, as abandoned bowling alleys became dueling centers.  Install a doc in the box, put a mortuary next door, and open a string of “Honor Satisfied! Arbitration Centers.”  In time we would reduce the surplus population of hotheads, fools, and vulgarians, and the brandy concession would thrive.

There ARE things worth fighting and dying for, and I submit that this issue comes under States’ Rights.  The Liberals will never understand, but those from Texas to Virginny will.

Regards,
Linda Brady Traynham

May 13, 2009

Why Dueling Should Be Reinstated was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

I should admit up front that I am a doom-and-gloom sort through and through. I’m also a fan of spectacular collapses, disasters…and zombie fiction.

Zombies, you see, are the pop culture manifestation of our fears of plague, societal breakdown, and the extinction of our own species. These are the very topics that have consumed my interest and shaped my worldview. Heck, I’ve even managed to parlay writing about them into my visible means of support.

I don’t, however, cheer on death and disaster; I just recognize how woven into the course of events they are. And in addition to this zombies have a very special place in my heart. In modern American lore they are often the result of a virus—quite literally a walking plague. They devour without actual need of nutrition. Each victim they masticate rises again in a ghastly parody of life to join the indefatigable, shambling army.

There’s something reflective about their reproduction and consumption. It’s not just the viral base or their walking corpse shtick that strikes a nerve. Their efficiency at needless, destructive consumption is downright American. We’ve met the enemy…and they look awfully familiar.

Zombies individually really aren’t that scary, however. It’s their amazing efficiency and speed at reproduction combined with the slow but relentless advance of their growing horde. The genre’s power isn’t in the glamour of a single horrible monster; it’s in the horror of the collapse of civilization. Cities fall…life becomes a very uncertain struggle…humanity gives way to much baser behavior. And against it all looms the likelihood of extinction. Good stuff!

Societal order isn’t quite as thick and binding a chain as folks like to believe. Chaos rears its ugliness pretty frequently. The more ordered and complex the system, the more shocking the unwinding when it inevitably occurs. In fact, size and complexity invite monstrous bushwackings by chaos. Chaos is like a Midwest tornado eyeing the Trailer Park of Order. It just can’t stay away.

So we don’t get zombies…this time…and frankly we don’t need them. Fate has always done just fine with the usual four horsemen and can afford to spurn such fiction. I think zombies would be a nice way to spice things up, but I’ll probably have to settle for the run of the mill plague or two. And it will be hard enough to fight my neighbors for food when energy prices squeeze supply lines and drive the price of agricultural inputs through the roof. This could be especially true in urban centers dotted with federal reservations housing wards of the state. Those folks could get especially restive when the going gets rough…and they’d be a lot faster than zombies.

Still, I find it helps to think in terms of a zombie infestation. How would I survive if my post-industrial built environment were to become unserviceable? How would I fare should basics like food and clean water become scarce enough in megalopolis to fight over? Really, how useful would gold be in the thick of collapse?

Well, we make our stand where we can. Most of us won’t be able to secure an escape to a well-prepared countryside retreat. We’ll have to make dothe best we can in our urban or suburban wilds. Some non-perishable food, some soap, toilet paper, water…a little whiskey…some gold if things stay fairly sane, some lead in case they don’t. A bit of philosophy would help, too. As Matt Savinar has written, we should be ready to kiss our asses goodbye.

Times are getting rough and all bets are off. It won’t be zombies, but it’ll be interesting.

Regards,
Gary Gibson
Managing Editor, Whiskey & Gunpowder

May 4, 2009

Zombie Pandemic Preparation was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

That major wars occur at such long remove from each other probably isn’t an accident. Really catastrophic wars, from at least the days of Troy on down, have usually been the Great Events that resound through living memory. The Great Event of a century forms the thought and character of everyone alive when it happens, influencing them relative to the stage of life they’re in at the time. Perhaps that’s why a people will collectively do its best to avoid a repeat, at least while there’s anyone still alive who saw the last crisis.

(It’s been said that war is a force that gives life meaning. And I think that’s true, although it’s perverse that the most destructive and idiotic activity that it’s possible to engage in would just have to be the most important. Maybe, after the orgy of self-indulgence and conspicuous consumption that has characterized the past couple decades, Americans collectively feel they need to prove something. There has to be some rationale for the current war hysteria other than pure stupidity…)

In any event, the way the current generations line up relative to historical analogs, an excellent case can be made the U.S. is approaching another time of secular crisis, a Fourth Turning, with an expected due date of 2005 – seven years from now – plus or minus a few years in either direction. The Stamp Acts catalyzed the American Revolution, the election of Lincoln catalyzed the Civil War, the Crash of ‘29 catalyzed the Depression/WW II era. What might precipitate the elements now floating in solution? The answer is, practically any random event that’s sufficiently traumatic. Any of the theses of current disaster/action novels and movies will do nicely. Perhaps the accidental or intentional release of a super plague vector. The crashing of an airliner into the Capitol during a joint session. (Close, but not quite.) An all-out assault on the IRS computers by an armed group – or perhaps the computers just melting down due to the Year 2000 Problem. Perhaps a financial disaster that cascades into the Greater Depression. In any of these, or a hundred other scenarios, the federal government would almost certainly act precipitously and with a heavy hand, which would bring on a whole other set of consequences.

(In the historical context, 9/11 will be viewed as the opening kick-off for the coming Crisis… and the messianic overreaction of Bush and his cronies as the catalyst for turning things from bad to worse. It may be that Hurricane Katrina, for instance, a completely accidental event, may be blamed for providing a pin to burst the financial bubble – which would be a pity, since the neocons could then blame it, not themselves.)

There’s no way of telling where the Crisis will lead, or how it will end. That’s going to depend not only on exactly who’s in control, but what they do, whom they’re up against, and a hundred other variables we can’t even anticipate. One thing that seems certain is that real crisis brings out strong (although not necessarily wise) leadership. Because of its age and size, it will come from the Boomer generation, and it will be in the mold of Roosevelt or Lincoln – both very dangerous precedents. The Boomers in Elderhood will be dogmatic, harsh, puritanical, and quite willing to burn down the barn in order to destroy whatever rats they see. Admix that attitude to a time resembling the Revolution, the Civil War, or WWII, overlain with today’s ethnic strife, urbanization, financial overextension, and powerful, compact new weaponry in the hands of foreign fanatics out to teach the Great Satan a lesson, and it’s a real witch’s brew.

If things evolve over the next decade as they did in past analogs, it will be a very un-mellow time indeed. That’s assuming things end well, and there’s no guarantee they will, as many foreign countries have discovered throughout history. We’ve been uniquely blessed.

What to Do

Strauss and Howe aren’t financial types, and their advice is nebulous along those lines. To sum it up, their suggestion is to learn to swim with the tide by not hoping the current good times last forever; the chances of the good times are coming to an end now. They’d also advise not sticking your head up above the crowd, something that is always very risky when times are in turmoil; remember what happened to Japanese-Americans during the last crisis. They suggest that there will likely be a resurgence of nationalism, much as was the case during past crises. It won’t be a good time to be a maverick in the U.S., a thought that makes places like Argentina and New Zealand look even more appealing.

(I bought property in both places shortly after this was written, and have been rewarded with a quadruple in both instances – considerably better than would have been the case in the U.S.)

Strauss and Howe suggest you look to diversify in all things, so everything won’t go bad at once. Brace for the collapse of public support mechanisms. Set your roots with your family, because people you can rely on will be at a premium. Heed emerging community norms, bond with like-minded people, and return to basic, classic virtues. This is sound advice any time, but critical if you’re rigging for heavy weather.

Assuming you wanted to stay in the U.S., you’d rather be on some land near a small town, and far away from a major city. You’d want to be self-sufficient in as many ways as possible – freeze-dried food. etc. Perhaps Howard Ruff will make a comeback with advice like that, which seems quaint today. But then I’m nothing if not a contrarian.

(In hindsight, the original article could have been a bit more specific – other than the suggestions about Argentina and New Zealand. Personally, I believe that unassailable wealth is the best protection against global crisis. For it to be unassailable, your wealth must be at once substantial, free from threat of confiscation, divorced from the whims of the masses, and located in a country or currency that has a good risk/reward profile. Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn’t make the cut.

In the first instance, the single best way to build wealth now, while there is still time to do so, is in carefully selected gold and other resource stocks. In order for it to be free from the threat of confiscation, at least some part of your wealth needs to reside in a country where you don’t. To state the obvious, I would be very cautious about traditional stocks and bonds until we see how things shake out. Rather, get positioned in gold and silver stocks now, ahead of the curve, then sell out for a big profit to the panicking masses and move an increasing percentage of your wealth into tangibles such as gold, silver, and maybe, as part of a diversified portfolio, real estate in especially attractive areas – but only after the bubble has decisively burst.)

A Parting Parable

In case you have any doubts, I buy the theory outlined above and its many ramifications that there isn’t room to explore here. It really is scary to think that we could again experience a real Crisis with a capital C; I’m not talking about just a bear market in stocks. If it happens, I promise you stocks and mutual funds will be about the farthest things from most people’s minds.

At the same time, there’s no point in feeling terrorized. This stuff has been going on since the dawn of history. So let me leave you with a parable. I could appropriately quote Ecclesiastes (To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die, a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted, etc., etc.). But everyone knows that reference. Let me rather give you John O’Hara. At the beginning of O’Hara’s novel Appointment in Samara, he tells a brief parable, which I’ll summarize:

There was a merchant in Baghdad who went to the market with his servant. There they saw Death, who stared at the servant in what seemed a threatening way. Later the servant said “Master, lend me a horse. I shall ride to Samara, and there Death will not find me.” The merchant did so, then returned to the market, where he again saw Death, whom he approached and asked why he had stared at his servant in such a threatening way. Death responded, “I wasn’t threatening him. I was just very surprised to see him here in Baghdad, since I have an appointment with him in Samara later this afternoon.”

(Strange, the location for the proverb, in that this was well before the current war.)

There is no doubt that we are now in the Crisis stage… which, according to Strauss and Howe’s “Turnings” theory, may last another decade or more. Is there any way to escape this economic tsunami unscathed?

Regards,
Doug Casey

January 21, 2009

Foundations of Crisis, Part III: War (So What’s Next?) was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.