Low-hanging fruit

A major factor in America during the first three decades of my life was New Recreational Drugs. Something always was being invented from scratch (e.g., LSD), rediscovered (cocaine), or modified (crack cocaine).

These innovations had much impact on crime statistics, music, attitudes, and so forth. Mickey Kaus, who had the Velvet Underground perform live during a school assembly when he was student body president of Beverly Hills HS in 1968, always says that when people go on and on about the creativity of the 1960s, they’re basically talking about the impact of novel combinations of chemicals on the brain.

In recent years, however, has this rate of innovation fallen off? I can remember somebody telling me about Ecstasy for the first time in late 1985. My reaction was, “Well, of course, they’re always inventing new drugs. This will never stop.”

But, it kind of seems like it stopped. Granted, nobody tells me about new drugs anymore, so perhaps kids these days are taking stuff that Hunter S. Thompson never imagined. Or perhaps not. Perhaps all the major psychoactive niches got filled decades ago so there isn’t much demand for new drugs.

Steve Sailer

He’s forgetting about aerosol cans and bath salts, of course. That’s wherefore we got Lady Gaga and dubstep.

Alternatively, widespread drug usage merely provided an audience for what was essentially folk music, produced in large part by neanderthals.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Low-hanging fruit

  1. edenismstudy says:

    There are new drugs coming out, like synthetic cannabinoids and 25i-NBOME

  2. Glenn says:

    “…essentially folk music…” is a true observation in some respects.

    I think this reflects a bigger change in American culture. Decades ago, bohemians, many artists and intellectuals really did come from a different class of people than investment bankers and politicians. Nowadays, all of those groups tend to come from the same class (within the former groups, I’m talking about anyone who matters). Those groups really conflicts of interest. People in many low-discipline subcultures (liberal arts professors, trust fund hippies, weekend rastafarians and such) seem to think that there’s a massive culturual divide between them and the banksters, and there’s not.

    You see this shift in New York City, for instance. The city has always been attractive to bohemians and up-and-coming artists. They move there in droves, then act shocked when the cultural makeup of the city becomes more and more SWPL (and everything gets more expensive). Investment bankers like their latte’s just as much as indie bands. They keep appealing to a cultural conflict that isn’t actually there.

    The creative juices (what little creative juices ever existed in the contexts we’re discussing) just aren’t there because the homogenization of American culture is at a much more advanced stage now than it was then. Indie rock bands and post-modern artists are not subversive, they’re boring. There’s the the filthy rich (who isolate themselves), the SWPL’s (who are increasingly pulling the strings culturally), and then everyone else.

    (Yes, that’s an awfully written comment.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s