Let’s begin with a quote from which the rest of this post will naturally follow:
Oddly enough, it is the intellectual snobbery and elitism of many of the literati that politically correct egalitarianism appeals to; their partiality to literary Marxism is based not on its economic theory but on its hostility to business and the middle class. The character of this anti-bourgeois sentiment therefore has more in common with its origin in aristocratic disdain for the lower orders than with egalitarianism.
– John M. Ellis
Most of my readers are likely personally familiar with this attitude. Debate a Leftist on social media and prepare yourself for a barrage of insults. You are ignorant, uneducated, immoral, hateful, and many other horrible, terrible things. The implication, of course, is that they are not these things. They are superior to you, better than you, more moral, more intelligent, etc…
Some time ago on Twitter, a self-declared Socialist explained to me that my car, a 2015 Mustang, was so plebeian. It was, he declared, entirely common. Anybody could afford the payments, he said (that I disdain auto loans and bought mine in cash never entered his mental calculations). I found this utterly fascinating, for Socialists usually claim to be acting for the common man. How could the word “common” thus be insulting?
Ocasio-Cortez became something of a meme after some enterprising reddit user humorously tabulated the cost of the various high fashion items she was wearing, while representing herself as a woman of the working class:
Because, as we know, the common man (or woman) wears a $3500 outfit. This tied in rather neatly with the Twitter Socialist decrying my automobile as too common. A proper Socialist would undoubtedly only drive a Ferrari or something. Ocasio-Cortez defended this by claiming the clothing was lent to her from the fashion industry. That doesn’t make it any better. Rich champagne Socialists are jumping on her bandwagon and dressing her as one of them? More elitists to tell you that the common man sucks.
The essence of modern Socialism is thus a carefully calculated message: “I’m better than you, neener-neener.” Everything they say is tainted with this. Pull up an article on any Left-leaning outlet and see it for yourself. Michael Crichton coined the term the Gell-Mann Effect to explain how people could be so blind to media stupidity. Perhaps we can coin a new term to refer to the Left’s smug superiority complex.
We could call it the Ocasio-Cortez Effect.
Socialism appeals to the very poor and the very wealthy. The very poor, of course, are jumping on the train because elitist Socialists are promising them a mountain of free shit. We can understand, and to some extent even forgive, their support of the far Left. The wealthy Socialists have a different conception of things, something Thomas Sowell explained quite clearly:
The almost universal disdain toward the middle class — the bourgeoisie — by those with cosmic visions can be more readily understood in light of the role of such visions as personal gratification and personal license. The middle classes have been classically people of rules, traditions, and self-discipline, to a far greater extent than the underclass below them or the wealthy and aristocratic classes above them. While the underclass pay the price of not having the self-discipline of the bourgeoisie — in many ways, ranging from poverty to imprisonment — the truly wealthy and powerful can often disregard the rules, including laws, without paying the consequences. Those with cosmic visions that seek escape from social constraints regarded as arbitrary, rather than inherent, tend to romanticize the unruliness of the underclass and the sense of being above the rules found among the elite.
– Thomas Sowell
Only someone far removed from the reality of the world could truly believe something like Socialism could work on an intellectual level. Marxist thinking is a disease that is precisely tailored to infect the mind of the intellectual elitist – after all, Marx himself was one such. Rationalizing absurdity is the province of an arrogant mind disconnected from the consequences (as Taleb would say, someone without skin in the game), not necessarily a stupid one. It takes someone far removed from the consequences of his actions to believe objective reality could be made subservient to subjective whims.
Socialists are a collective mirror of Xerxes trying to whip the sea into obedience. That’s the sort of thing only a smug, self-entitled, angry, and dare I say childish individual could possibly come up with. But stupid? No, not stupid. No doubt Xerxes had some twisted, self-satisfied rationalization for why the gods would obey him, should he do those things.
Or maybe he was just a petulant child. Sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference between a smug elitist and a child throwing a temper tantrum. When you see Antifas lighting garbage cans on fire and breaking windows while screaming “FUCK TRUUUUUUMP”, know that you’re seeing a lesser version of Xerxes having the sea whipped.
Look at the Socialists out there today, with their Starbucks coffee, Apple iPhones, and mountains of debt. They say they are better than you. They say they are smarter, more moral, more fashionable, etc… They would never be caught dead with a common product, naturally. Nor would they be caught dead with the common working man. Coal miners? Fuck those guys! Plumbers? Electricians? Line workers? So plebeian!
I bet they drive Mustangs. And they probably don’t even wear Gucci! So passe.
Is it any wonder working and middle class folks came out in support of Trump in such a big way? Decades worth of Leftists were shitting on the common working class man, and finally they had enough. Once the Left at least pretended to like these people, to fight for them. Now they only fight for foreigners. Send truckloads of illegals, refugees, and whoever else they can possibly ship over the border and give them as much free shit as possible. Provided, of course, that they vote for Socialists. Socialists with Prada bags, presumably.
That’s always the bargain. If Mexicans voted like Cubans, Obama would have built walls that put Babylon and the Great Wall of China to shame. They’d have been thicker and taller than the Theodosian walls of Constantinople.
Do what your betters say. Obey. It’s an affliction that even makes itself known on the nominal right. Tom Nichols is a big fan of obeying the experts because they are better than you. And by experts, he is really referring to technocrats. Most technocrats, of course, lean Socialist.
I will close with one quote the anointed experts, self-avowed champagne Socialists, and Ferrari drivers should take note of:
Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
– Thomas Jefferson
The Founders knew perfectly well the dangers of Socialism… long before it was even called by that name. Government by anointed elitists who know better than you is as ancient as the historical record.
Please share the link with everyone you can. This needs to be brought to the attention of the HHS Department ASAP. There needs to be clear regulation of this atrocity.
Years ago, when I selected Organ Donor as the default on my driver’s license, my father told me not to do it. He said there would come a time, when the rich and influential would kill people just to take their organs.
I agreed to think about it, but, secretly, I laughed about his paranoia. How ridiculous! No one would ever do that.
6th Century B.C. vase depicting Achilles, Athena and Ajax during the Trojan War (Source: historynet.com)
We ended Part 1 of this discussion by posing the following questions:
How did we get to this point?
Where are we going as a civilization?
Is our civilization still growing and evolving, or in fact dying?
A growing plurality of Americans has turned away from organized religion. Furthermore, confidence in our political, economic, legal, media and social institutions is extremely poor and worsening. Have we reached a point of no return? If Yes, what happens next? If No, how do we move forward?
In order to even begin a conversation to address these concerns, we first need to provide ourselves with an appropriate set of analytical tools. As mentioned previously, I’ll be assembling this toolkit from the works of Toynbee and Strauss & Howe.
In his masterpiece “A Study of History”, Toynbee identifies twenty one societies in the roughly 10,000 year history of humanity that fit his criteria of a ‘civilization’, as opposed to just a nation, city or tribe. There are interactions between some or many of these civilizations both in terms of ‘space’ (either by geographical proximity or at least contemporaneous contact thru trade, diplomacy and/or war) and ‘time’ (where an older civilization generates a successor or has some significant level of influence over a later culture.)
Early in his Study, Toynbee decisively rejects historical models that characterize the rise and fall of civilizations as analogous to the birth, growth, maturity, senescence and death of an individual human being. He argues that the history of civilizations is instead commensurate with a group of free climbers scaling a massive and precipitous cliff. Occasionally a climber encounters a physical obstacle impossible to overcome and gets stuck. Others may pause to rest on a ledge for an indeterminate period. Finally, there are those who, perhaps after sliding back to some extent, transform themselves into a stronger climber with a modified set of skills and resume the climb. This last is the most frequent type observed by Toynbee.
From Toynbee’s model one can observe the time scale between the commencement and demise of a civilization all the way to the creation of its successor to be a span of two or more millennia. He breaks this progression into three parts: an establishment and growth phase, an end to growth (which he terms a ‘breakdown’), and a decline & collapse, normally followed by an 800-1000 year ‘interregnum’ before the remnants of the extinct civilization are reorganized and, with new institutions replacing those which had failed, concludes in the dawn of its heir. He likens this last part as symbolically equivalent to the Phoenix of legend which, consumed in its own flame, rises from the ashes of its funeral pyre stronger and more magnificent than before.
I will do my best to summarize the details of each phase below. If the summary proves insufficient, please feel free to consult the original volumes for a more elaborate description, but be warned: as beautifully written and wonderfully informative as it is, Toynbee’s body of work is quite long and the prose is dense with meaning, as well as being gorgeously eloquent and extraordinarily erudite. You will need a full dictionary by your side and will find yourself searching for the meanings of various words in languages other than English – including French, Latin and Ancient Greek. I limited myself to the Sommervell abridgement, which is itself over 1,000 pages, and am satisfied that I have done enough.
We begin with a society that appears in a given region and is distinct from any surrounding societies in at least one cultural aspect (and typically more) – social, legal, economic, political or technological. By coming into existence, this society demonstrates that it has both mastered its immediate physical environment and held its own against any external enemies. As a consequence of these two successes, the society demonstrates that it has established itself and – assuming its energies are not totally consumed by contending with its physical environment or defending its territory from invaders – now has the ‘leisure’ to develop further, thus entering its Growth phase.
Thomas Cole, “Course of Empire – The Arcadian or Pastoral State”, 1834 (Source: Wikipedia)
A civilization that is growing will exhibit the following general characteristics:
Having proved itself against external challenges, the society from then on faces challenges that are primarily internal in nature.
These challenges are, in fact, direct results stemming from whatever solution the civilization developed to successfully meet the previous challenge. (Ex: to survive an invasion, a civilization transforms its government, legal framework, social structure and economy to support the war effort. Once the invader is expelled, the populace wishes to return to a peaceful society in order to both enjoy and benefit from the fruits of victory, but the political and economic leadership that has prospered from their role in the war resists changing their ways, citing ‘the need for order and security.’ A crisis inevitably ensues.)
To meet these challenges successfully, the civilization will either adopt new institutions or effectively modify existing ones.
The individual or group internal to the civilization which successfully addresses a challenge will itself rise to positions of leadership. They will become a ‘Creative Minority’ who serve as an example for the rest (known as the ‘Internal Proletariat’) to emulate/imitate (termed ‘Mimesis’ by Toynbee.) Whatever leadership clique that had been in charge of the civilization before (having achieved their pre-eminence by solving the previous crisis and becoming that era’s Creative Minority) will be displaced by the new Creative Minority.
An ‘External Proletariat’ outside of the civilization’s borders arises. This group may be, on occasion and in parts, an enemy of the civilization, but is more inclined on the whole to admire it and will desire to either join it or emulate it partially or wholly as best as it can. The ‘radiance’ of a growing civilization can spread amazingly far, thus affecting tribes, peoples and nations at surprising distances from the civilization’s actual political boundaries. Thus, an External Proletariat can be quite large and varied, with the strength of the civilization’s ‘glow’ fading gradually over distance.
We can see from the above that further challenges to a civilization once it establishes itself are actually problems that are of their own making. To contend with the problem, the civilization is not struggling with an outside power but with itself. The better this civilization is at confronting and resolving these problems is a measure of its capacity for self-determination.
The “Mechanism” of Growth
Is civilization an individual thing, like a person? Or is it like a collection of ‘cells’ completely subordinate to the whole, like a living organism? In Toynbee’s view, neither characterization is sufficient. He reasons that Civilization is the sum total of relationships between its individual members. These relations arise from the synchronism of their individual fields of action. From this develops a common ground, and this common ground is what we call a society.
Toynbee also points out that society is a field of action, but the source of all action is the individuals who compose that society. An individual or small group/cadre can cause the whole of society to move in a particular direction, once they are all allied to this movement under the inspiration of the provoking individual(s). The trick is for the creative individual or a Creative Minority to both break a civilization’s ‘cake of custom’ themselves in a constructive manner and then convince the Internal Proletariat thru some means (oratory, demonstration, inducing them to pursue the experience of discovery themselves, inspiring the social act of Mimesis/imitation, what have you) to follow the Creative Minority and adopt this New Way. In this manner, a Creative Minority leads the Internal Proletariat and together they solve a civilization’s current existential crisis/challenge.
Finally, Toynbee notes that as a civilization grows, it will further differentiate itself from other civilizations by the choices it makes in successive acts of self-determination, forging its unique future while generating solutions to successive trials. This differentiation can take many forms – religion, art, industry, inventiveness, architecture and so forth.
Thomas Cole, “Course of Empire – The Consumation of Empire”, 1836 (Source: Wikipedia)
As a civilization resolves a crisis, only to be presented over time with a fresh challenge whose generation is attributable to the resolution of the previous one, the cycle of new trials eventually comes to a halt when the civilization encounters a predicament which it finds itself unable to resolve. This is, in Toynbee’s view, a failure of further self-determination. When such an event occurs, internal growth ceases and the civilization’s engine of self-evolution ‘breaks down.’
The characteristics of a breakdown are as follows:
The existing Creative Minority fails to find a resolution to the latest dilemma and instead digs in its heels, resting on its laurels and defending its recalcitrance on the principle of “what worked before is what’s best.”
A new Creative Minority fails to surface to address the issue, either by an accident of fortune, or because the Internal Proletariat fails to be swayed by the upstarts, or because the existing Creative Minority successfully represses them.
The Internal Proletariat loses confidence in the Creative Minority and begins withdrawing their support and Mimesis.
Social unity begins to fray. Civil strife can become common and extraordinarily cruel & sanguinous – as bad or worse than any barbarian invader’s depravations.
The existing Creative Minority begins transforming into a Dominant Minority, ruling less and less by admiration and increasingly by writ of force, seeking to coerce the Internal Proletariat into returning to a posture of Mimesis.
The Internal Proletariat, outwardly obedient, quietly responds with growing hostility to the ruling clique and begins to resist passively (for the most part.)
The External Proletariat begins to lose its admiration for the bordering civilization and grows increasingly hostile towards it – particularly in a military sense. The border between the two consequently begins transforming from a political and/or geographical one into a fortified frontier.
There are obvious examples of this throughout the history of Rome, China, Persia and others. Toynbee’s work is rich with examples from across the globe and thru all historical eras. Such periods are often referred to by later generations as a “Time of Troubles.”
A breakdown is not necessarily decisive. Civilizations do recover from them if a new Creative Minority does find a way to rise and lead its fellow citizens down a new path. The existing institutions which have failed to answer the crisis at hand will either be modified or discarded and replaced, and the civilization will resume its growth vector.
But in cases where this new savior or team of heroes does not arise, the existing ruling clique will develop solutions which are nothing more than stopgap measures – fixes that utilize existing institutions and only provide partial relief, which in terms of software engineering is often referred to as a ‘kludge.’
These kludges work to a certain degree and for a brief period. In the early part of such periods, both the Internal and External Proletariats are calmed by a seeming return to normalcy, and all seems well. But the rot has set in, and the unresolved issues which constitute the original crisis again assert themselves.
In his analysis, Toynbee discovered a remarkable pattern associated with civilizations in breakdown. There seems to be a rhythm to it – a 3.5 beat cadence of crisis, partial relief, relapse, partial and weaker relief, further relapse, particularly weak relief, and then a final and catastrophic return of the challenge. During each ‘beat’ of the rhythm, existing institutions are damaged and eroded, with some failing along the way. If, in none of the three beats does the civilization sprout a Creative Minority to lead them out of crisis, the final resurgence of the impasse precipitates a permanent slide into decline which Toynbee frames as a ‘disintegration.’
Thomas Cole, “Course of Empire – Destruction”, 1836 (Source: Wikipedia)
In this woeful chapter of a civilization’s history, its attempts at constructively dealing with the last trial have conclusively failed. Instead of a functional solution, the dominant minority attempts to ‘freeze’ everything in place and preserve its inadequate institutions for the sake of order and to maintain a grip on the reins of power.
A rather important lesson to be learned from this is that a civilization’s disintegration is actually a suicide. The wound is a self-inflicted one, stemming from the civilization’s loss or abandonment of self-determination.
What are the ‘symptoms’ of a Civilization that is decaying/disintegrating?
The existing Creative Minority completes its transformation into a Dominant Minority, ruling by force.
The Internal Proletariat is coerced by the brute strength of the State into obedience. Though there may be a temporary reconciliation stemming from the Dominant Minority bringing a final end to the internal civil disorder caused by a ‘Time of Troubles’, it is a brief respite only. Sometimes the Internal Proletariat will openly revolt after a time, but direct action usually fails. The more common response is passive rejection of their rulers.
The civilization becomes highly belligerent and vents its ferocity on the External Proletariat in an eruption of territorial conquest. This begins the Universal State period, where the Civilization extends its territories well beyond the original political borders. This has the temporary effect of drawing the Internal Proletariat and Dominant Minority together.
The Dominant Minority has a transient burst of creativity channeled into military affairs, legislative and administrative frameworks for exerting control over the newly created Imperium, philosophy, literature and art which reinforce the assumed legitimacy of the Dominant Minority, and even some technical innovation in the form of engineering and architectural improvements that originate from military necessity.
The External Proletariat now becomes implacably hostile. A state of war becomes a fixture of the relationship between it and the disintegrating Civilization, and the light of that Civilization no longer radiates past its fortified borders to positively impress the External Proletariat.
The social and economic strains on the Civilization grow worse as the failure to overcome the original challenge that led to breakdown festers like an open wound and the continual state of war causes ruinous taxation, economic devastation and ever increasing hardship. The political architecture becomes poisonous as well as administrative bureaucracy grows in size and reach, becomes corrupt and fatally wounds the Rule of Law. The relationship between the Internal Proletariat and the Dominant Minority worsens until it collapses, and a permanent social schism emerges as the Internal Proletariat withdraws and becomes cynical, bitter and disillusioned.
As the civilization’s least effective and/or completely archaic institutions fail, one that gets cashiered and replaced wholesale in every instance is religion. Having been impressed over time with the External Proletariat by its energy, tenacity and growing success, the Internal Proletariat turns to it for inspiration and imports a theology from the enemy which the Internal Proletariat then makes its own. Art, fashion and civil norms cross the frontier bulwarks as well, to be adopted by the Internal Proletariat.
As total collapse approaches, the Dominant Minority gives up on trying to tug the Internal Proletariat back to them and instead crosses the gap from its side in order to draw closer to the Internal Proletariat. Accompanying this is a steep decline in standards for civility, morals, art and dress. Eventually, all three groups – the Dominant Minority, Internal and External Proletariats – become so similar that their differences are reduced to minor factors.
Eventually, the border barricades collapse. Having lost its military superiority thru inadvertently training its enemies over time how to fight against it effectively, and unable to sustain the war effort further due to loss of social cohesion, an economy destroyed by the ravages of war and the tax burden imposed to pay for it, along with the vitality-crushing load of a bloated imperial bureaucracy, the Universal State falls. The Dominant Minority, Internal Proletariat and External Proletariat merge and, after a period of chaos, begin the task of reassembling a functional society by re-vitalizing old institutions, scrapping useless ones and developing new ones appropriate to the times – including ones that finally resolve the original challenge that the dead Civilization failed to overcome . Thru this ‘interregnum’ of 8-10 centuries, a new Creative Minority gradually emerges to organize and lead this revitalization, culminating in the birth of a new Civilization.
There are several types of ‘false starts’ that present themselves during the decay – attempts by the Dominant Minority to salvage the present by either returning to a mythical past when their Civilization supposedly worked gloriously well (Archaism) or to make a blind leap into the future and start again from scratch (Futurism.) Both of these are doomed to utter failure.
Archaism comes up short because the institutions and practices which may have worked in the past are no longer suited for the present – especially when dealing with the existential challenge whose failure by the then Creative Minority to resolve in multiple attempts precipitated the decline. Furthermore, Archaism attempts to crystallize the Civilization into an unalterable form, resulting in its ultimate sterility.
Futurism seeks to scrap everything currently employed by the Civilization that keeps it up and running (even in its current debilitated condition), wiping the slate clean to create all things from new and in a perfect form. Utopian idealism always fails, however, on its first encounter with reality.
The Strauss & Howe theory has attracted quite a bit of attention and criticism over the last two decades. Supporters believe it to be uniquely insightful due to its focus on the effects of major historical events on peoples and nations and their observed reactions to such events over an extended period. Detractors criticize the methodology as ‘touchy feely’, non-rigorous, overly malleable and non-falsifiable ‘pop culture’ historical analysis.
My own view is that the theory is useful not as a precise surgical instrument with which to analyze history but as a ‘wide angle lens’ providing a general overview. It is not a tool of prophecy or fortune-telling, but a general guide. There can be no question that ‘great’ events can trigger mass movements and attitudinal shifts in populations – the experiences of my father and his Italo-American immigrant family in New Jersey with the Roaring Twenties, Great Depression and WW2, as well as my mother’s experiences and those of her extended family in Italy during the war, shaped their outlooks, how they chose to live their lives and what they imparted to me as life lessons in my formative years.
Let’s look at the main precepts of the Generational Cycle theory below:
The theory works primarily for societies that have dynamic social structures. Any society with a rigid social hierarchy – where one’s destiny is determined solely by accident of birth – does not lend itself to analysis with this toolset.
The duration of a cycle is, very roughly, 4 generations. The length of a particular generation can vary by as much as 20% compared to the equivalent portion of a previous cycle. Estimates of these lengths are, by their very nature, rather qualitative, and are quite naturally influenced by historic events. Thus, a typical cycle can be anywhere from 80-100 years in length and is measured from one existential crisis to the next.
Cycles can be disrupted. As an example: the Civil War resulted in over 1M deaths, roughly ¾ of them soldiers between the ages of 13 and 43, and a total of 3% of America’s population at the time. The social and economic effects were tremendous, especially in the South, driving migration to unsettled western territories. The South did not recover economically for half a century. During the postwar period, a tremendous influx of new immigrants flooded the United States, mostly from non-Germanic nations, whose integration into American life also greatly affected the social fabric. Because of these factors, the cycle did not clearly reassert itself until the beginning of the 20th century.
The role of each of the 4 generations in each of the cycle’s 4 periods (called ‘Turnings’) depends on the average physical age of a given generation in a particular stage of a cycle. The physical age is broken into 4 categories – childhood (where a basic outlook on life is set), young adulthood (where a generation begins emerging into the world and coming into its own), middle age (where a generation takes the reins of political, social and economic leadership in society) and old age (where a generation withdraws from public life into retirement.)
The 4 periods of a cycle are known as a High (Society has solved/survived the last crisis and a period of order, prosperity, organization and community optimism prevails), an Awakening (where public institutions and the order they bring to the community come under attack for suppressing individualism), an Unraveling (where public institutions, now fatally undermined from the Awakening, are widely distrusted and the individualism that sprouted from the Awakening is ferociously embraced), and a Crisis (where all institutions are destroyed – a very dangerous period often including a major war or severe civil strife. In this, the Generational Cycle agrees with many historians, including Toynbee, who have observed that a people or nation is highly susceptible to engaging in a major military conflict every 80-100 years – as if a given nation or people has forgotten what war is really like, as there is no one still alive to remind them.)
The 4 generations, each born into a particular period of the cycle which shapes their outlook, are called Heroes (the children of a Prophet generation whose childhood occurs during an Unraveling and who, as young adults, encounter and solve the subsequent Crisis), Prophets (the children of a Hero generation whose childhood is spent in the peaceful, tranquil order and group cooperation environment of a High and who, as young adults, rebel against that order in favor of individual expression and personal freedom), Nomads (children of an Artist generation who in their early youth observe the institutional degradation of an Awakening and, distrusting those same ineffective or damaged institutions, enter young adulthood knowing they must rely on their own resources and cut their own trail thru the wilderness of the future – a feeling that I have known all my life (see the prologue of the 1st installment of this series)), and Artists (born during a Crisis from Nomad parents and overprotected by them, they enter adulthood as conformists, consensus seekers and compromisers, and are highly supportive of and deeply impressed by the Hero generation which precedes them.)
For me, a simple way to understand the underlying principles of the Generational Cycle is to remember that, by and large, each generation thinks it’s smarter than their parents. 😉
The interactions between each generation during a given period, when they are all at different stages of their lives and have different social standing with respect to one another, is what creates the events and outcomes of that period of the cycle.
In order to provide a focus for the discussion, let’s capture the main characteristics of the generations in our own time using the Strauss & Howe tools:
Baby Boomers – a Prophet generation and children of the (Hero) GI Generation, born 1941-1960 (approximately.) As young adults, they rebelled against their parents, called themselves ‘Hippies’, advocated ‘Free Love’ and ‘Flower Power’, and adopted a “Turn On, Tune In and Drop Out” attitude to life. They are now approaching or are already in retirement. It is this generation who gave birth to the Millenials (the next ‘Hero’ generation) and who are supposed to generate a ‘Grey Champion’ that, with a voice of fire and brimstone, rallies the young Heros and points to the path which they must follow in order to resolve the Crisis and restore the polity to the kind of order and prosperity which they remember from their own childhood.
Generation X – that would be MY generation, folks: the Nomads. Born from 1961-1981 and children of a “Silent” generation of Artists, we are self-reliant and wary of authority. Fundamentally pragmatic and rising into positions of power at this point, we are expected to provide the practical guidance and mission directives to Millenials thru the Crisis.
Millenials – born 1982-2004, whose parents are the Boomers. It is hoped that this will be this cycle’s Hero generation which will triumph over the Crisis and establish a new Golden Order; a generation that is supposed to be self-confident, team-oriented, civics – conscious and driven by concern for the Greater Good.
My own experience has been more….nuanced. Some millenials I’ve met have a despicable sense of self-importance, narcissism and entitlement with a strong elitist tint. Their mere presence is a divine gift, their self-awarded greatness based not on achievement but on the mere fact that they draw breath, accompanied by an obsession with receiving continual validation and exercising control. They are, in short, the worst possible products of what is now a very ‘progressive’ educational system heavily based on ‘participation’ awards. There are other millenials, however, who I have found to be stunningly humble, genuine, honest, driven to prove themselves, anxious to achieve worthwhile things and quite eager to learn. As best as I can tell, the dividing line between these two general types of millenials is age. Those born, say, from 1982-1993 seem more likely to exhibit the negative traits, while those born later hold promise. There seems to be a genuine divide between them as well, as I’ve seen the two groups clash heatedly.
Generation Z (the Homeland Generation) – beginning in 2005, those of this emerging generation are the Artist children of Generation X. Early data suggests they will play their usual support role to the Hero generation of Millenials, though I suspect they will align themselves with the younger half of that group.
And now that we have our full set of analytical tools, what does their application to our current situation tell us?
I’ll begin a step by step analysis in the next post. 🙂
One of the fascinating claims I’ve heard lobbed around political debates on social media is this: “women never lie about rape/sexual assault.” This is sometimes qualified or modified to be “women rarely lie about rape/sexual assault.” That happens most often when someone brings up something like the Duke Lacrosse case, or something like this. If challenged, the Leftist (this is claim is most common among them) will attempt to back up the statement with statistics like this bit of research conducted by Stanford. The meat of the study is that only 2% of rape accusations are proven to be false.
At first glance, this would appear to support the Leftist assertion. But it really doesn’t. First off, while I cannot verify Stanford’s claims, let’s operate under the assumption that the stats are true. Here’s another statistic you may or may be aware of. According to RAINN, out of 310 reports made to the police (i.e. accusations), only 11 cases are referred to prosecutors, and only 7 result in felony convictions. This means that only about 2% of rape/sexual assault accusations are proven true.
What does this mean, if all these stats are true? It means that 96% of rape cases are indeterminate. We don’t know if the accuser is lying, or if the accused is guilty. Neither is proven true. Furthermore, given the fact that human memory is not infallible, and that human interpretation/perception can result in one participant believing it is a rape and the other believing it is not, there are permutations where both are speaking truthfully. There was some speculation to this effect with Kavanaugh, especially given that the alleged incident was both 36 years old, and involved copious amounts of alcohol.
In other words, the Leftists are either lying or are ignorant of the facts. Fact is, rape accusations are proven to be lies at roughly the same rate as they are proven to be true, but the vast majority are unproven either way.
That puts a different spin on the notion, doesn’t it? That means, if there is no supporting evidence, you may as well flip a coin as to whether or not the accusation is bullshit, and whether or not the accused is actually a rapist. A coin flip doesn’t support destroying a man’s reputation.
And that’s what all this is about. By claiming that rape accusations are rarely falsified, the Leftist is implying this is itself a form of evidence. The Leftist is saying, without having to actually back up the claim, that the accusation means there is now a 98% chance of the accused being a rapist. It is a tacit method of getting around the presumption of innocence.
The whole thing is flimsy rhetoric. It’s a bald-faced fallacy. The accusation doesn’t change the actual odds. Either the rape happened, or it did not. Consider also that, even if the Leftists were right about a 2% lie rate, it doesn’t take into account that humans cannot be governed by anything like the Kinetic Theory of Gasses. Asimov was wont to speculate on the possibility that such analysis was possible, that a psychohistory could be made to work. It cannot. Think about it very carefully. If you’re a woman who hates a particular man, for whatever reason, and you know that people will say only 2% of rape accusations are lies, you can intentionally and cynically use this to make the man look guilty. People are willful, and can defy the statistics whenever they choose to do so. Statistics do not govern individual actions. And even Asimov said in Foundation that psychohistory could only work if people were unaware of its application, and so could not willfully sabotage it (that happened anyway in Foundation & Empire).
Using statistics on the accuracy of accusations to determine probability of individual guilt is thus a category error to begin with. I’ve been very confused with people treating it as if this had any meaning whatsoever. Guilt or innocence is independent of accusation. People aren’t molecules in a cloud of gas. Probability and statistics has some utility with large human groups as a whole, but psychohistory does not exist, and the accuracy of the generalization does not apply to the individual in any case. These things are not hard to understand, and yet everywhere I look, people are thinking about this thing backwards.
I’m of the belief that you need to talk to/read about your enemy by getting up close and personal with them. Most people are more truthful than not, if you seem to care about them. One way that you can learn about the Resistance is to use search tools to uncover the strategies and tactics that they post in plain sight.
One that we’ve seen recently is Bird-Dogging. It’s following a politician around in public, and harassing him/her about a position or vote. Recently, this has moved from appearance at official events, to ANY time that person steps outside of their house or office.
But, a perennial interest is politics and culture – and the intersection of the two. I was a 2nd-wave feminist, back when feminism wasn’t cool. For me, that was primarily working to open up opportunities for women in work and education. I drifted away when I had kids – that was a massive slap in the face with reality.
When politics and culture got REAL was in the aftermath of 9/11 (as it was for so many lazy, go-along folks). I read obsessively, trying to get on top of the news, and to make sense of the pushback from the Left. I really don’t know just how I stumbled upon right-of-center blogs; I just know that I had a sudden shock that the blogger was writing directly to me.
From that point, I started exploring ideas that I’d ignored before – about how the culture shapes politics, not the other way around. That to be for marriage and the family was not a bad thing. That the problems of many people were largely of their own making, and that they would latch onto any person – or party – arguing that they were a helpless victim of the Big, Bad Patriarchy.
I was not totally in favor of the 2nd Gulf War. I’d lived through the first, right after cable TV came to the small town we were living in at the time. I was so stressed, I went out several days before the attack started, and bought 10 skeins of yarn and an afghan needle. The result, a mixed blue and wine blend, I called my Afghan War afghan. Which, I gave to my son for his bed.
I had skin in the post-9/11 military activities – two of my kids were active Navy, and my daughter (and her future husband) was in the Army National Guard. For many people, the engagements after the Iraqi invasion was over were a minor sidenote. For me, it was more reason to worry. The smaller, not-fully-engaged wars have killed and maimed more people since WWII, than the full-on invasions. Many of them American citizens.
Me, too – and not that over-hyped bandwagon that makes a woman a victim if she agrees to sex to advance her career, then decides the price was too high.
Feminism has devolved from a quest to level the playing field in work, education, and money access, to a Bitchy insistence that Womyn are the Queens of the Universe, and ALL MEN should Bow Down to Them.
From that original reasonable beginning, the twisted outcomes include:
Removing men from family life completely – whether through unfair custody settlements, unproven and unprovable abuse accusations, donor sperm, etc.
Enshrining the Single Mother as the epitome of excellence – even though, by every measurable metric, the outcomes for the children are uniformly bad. Not just slightly worse, REALLY BAD.
Re-designing the Welfare system to favor single motherhood, so much so, that a committed married couple takes a huge financial hit by remaining together.
No-Fault Divorce – it was sold as a way for a guy to dump a resistant wife. Turns out, the women initiate divorces overwhelmingly.
REALLY bad laws – and different across the country – that can have a guy paying for a kid he KNOWS (by DNA test) is not his. All the while, the mother can live with, and even marry, the actual father, who has NO obligation to support his own kid.
Weaponizing the credit system, so that women can bankrupt an unwilling spouse, even though she has no independent income. In my view, he/she that earns the income, has the say in how that portion is spent, proportionally. With responsibility for providing the income, comes the right to direct that spending.
The Sixties has much to answer for, but the most urgent need is to right the Buffooning of Men. In every depiction of men – whether TV, movies, advertisements, or on the news, there are only TWO ways that men are shown:
Consider this my final kiss-off to current establishment feminism; nice to have known ya and believe me when I say that a female-ruled society would pure bloody hell, if it ever was or would be enabled. It would be somewhat akin to the hell of last week’s hearing for a new Supreme Court nominee – which for me was the very last straw.
No argument here – in my life, I’ve seen the best – and the worst – from women. But, until recently, I’d thought it unkind to speak of women as Literal Witches.
Note: this is the first post here by Triple Sphinctered Wombat. Be sure to give him a good welcome. -Thales
I remember a summer evening in June 1968 at a modest house in northeastern New Jersey when I was a snot-nosed lad of 5. The extended family had gathered at the home of my father’s aunt Millie for dinner. My great aunt was a wonderful woman, a very devout Catholic and extremely kind hearted. Her one fault was that….well, her spaghetti sauce was runny. But nobody really cared – we were a large, multigenerational Italian family whose American roots began with ancestors who cycled thru Ellis Island at the very beginning of the 20th century, and we hardly needed an excuse to be together.
After dinner, everyone decided to take some of the cool evening air in Uncle Louie’s tiny but well tended back yard. With a few fireflies zipping about, the adults all began chatting with each other in random groups while us kids immediately began working off dinner by running around like banshees. These were days where children were expected to play outdoors and weren’t immediately diagnosed with a hyperactivity disorder and given medication.
I remember how wonderfully happy I was. We were all together – parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, great aunts and uncles, cousins. I felt safe, secure, loved and protected on a cool early summer’s eve.
The grown-ups were gabbing away happily about the daily trivia of their lives until someone mentioned the TV news and……Vietnam. A wave seemed to pass over the adults as they all expressed agitation and dismay over the images they were seeing on the nightly news. The conversations became anxious as their faces registered confusion, horror and even a dose of fear.
Please understand – these were people who had come thru the Great Depression and the Second World War. Some of the younger men had served in that war. My mother had emigrated to the United States 10 years earlier and had experienced the war in Italy as a civilian – seeing family members lose their lives, family friends taken away by “Le Fascie Nere” or Wehrmacht troops to never be seen again, being buried alive in a bombing raid and quite nearly dying under the rubble, starving a little more day by day as food got ever scarcer and the Allied advance stalled in the Appenines – you get the picture.
When she arrived in America in 1958, she experienced what America’s Greatest Generation had built in the post-War years – a nation brimming with civic duty and pride, whose freedom, prosperity and peace seemed miraculous compared to the trials all of them had experienced in their lives. Yet just as the nation they had helped build was about to plant its flag on the moon a full half dozen times, they were being presented with video clips of men who could have been their friends, neighbors, cousins and in some cases even sons or nephews who were fighting and dying in a foreign land they knew nothing about for reasons that they could not decipher – and they couldn’t understand why such a thing could be happening.
As young as I was, I perceived the profound unease and bewilderment enveloping the adults in that backyard and felt something shift in my soul. The bedrock of my stable, protected and nurtured existence cracked as I recognized their profound disquiet, a result of the unexpected and wrenching change in their world. The need to understand what could have affected them so – men and women who shepherded me, taught me, cared for me, encouraged and guided me, people who never left the house without putting on a suit, shirt and tie or a proper dress, who created the order and tranquility into which I had been born – started that night, and evolved into a yearning to discover the underlying truths of the course of human history. It’s been a lifelong and serious hobby of mine to understand not only who we are as a people and how we got where we are, but to delve into the lives of individuals, creeds, tribes and societies across the span of mankind’s recorded past, so that I might learn enough to have an inkling of what the future might have in store.
In the following series of essays I will apply, as best I can, all that I have learned and deduced (rightly or wrongly) on the topic of human history to delineate where I perceive America to be today not just as a people but as a culture/civilization, as well as where it may be headed. I will refer as needed to the work of William Strauss and Neil Howe and their Generational Cycle of history, and will depend even more on the exhaustive 12 volume treatise of the history of mankind composed by former University of London professor Arnold J. Toynbee which he called, with stunning modesty, “A Study of History.” I believe it necessary to employ both theories and their methodologies in this discussion as I have come to the conclusion they are concurrently manifesting themselves in American culture in an accidental yet nevertheless near perfect synchronization.
With this in mind, I will begin by immediately borrowing a page from Toynbee and specifically define the “Object of our Inquiry.”
Per Toynbee, America can be classified as one amongst a relatively large set of European ‘parochial states’ which constitute a Western Civilization birthed by the Renaissance and Enlightenment, these events being the product of a 1,000 year medieval ‘interregnum’ following the demise of the Roman Empire, itself the last manifestation of a Hellenic civilization which is the direct ancestor of Western culture.
Such a categorization of America has historical precedent per Toynbee’s thesis. Among his examples: from the collapse of the Sumeric civilization there arose Achaemenid Persian, Assyrian, Phoenician, Babylonian and Judaic states, all considered part of a ‘Syriac’ civilization with shared roots for their languages, political structures, social norms, customs and religious beliefs (though the Persians broke from this last factor thru Zoroastrianism, as did the Hebrews thru Judaism.) Toynbee cites other examples with which historians broadly agree, and the USA is considered by most people in modern times to be a European ‘spawn’ under a Western civilization’s ‘aegis.’
However, with the greatest respect to Toynbee, for whom I have profound admiration, I must dissent.
Consider the following factors:
The first colonists to arrive on American shores were Dutch and English. (Yes, the Vikings beat them by 400 years, but they didn’t stay.)
The single largest group of immigrants to America came from Germany in the early to mid-19th century. The third largest group was from Scandinavia (Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Finns), arriving nearly the same time (more or less) as the Germans.
If we mark the official establishment of the United States of America from the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, we can legitimately state that America’s beginning coincided almost exactly with the start of the Industrial Revolution.
From #1 we see which groups poured the foundation for American culture, and from #2 we can identify the groups that both preserved and greatly reinforced this foundation. Crediting the creation of America to Europe in a collective sense is thus grossly imprecise. It is far more accurate to attribute America’s early formation specifically to Northern European Protestants.
Allow me to explain my thesis in detail.
Europe’s protestant nations were predominantly or overwhelmingly populated by invading (and homicidally competing) Germanic tribes during Rome’s republican and Imperial eras, sharing cultural characteristics between one another that sharply differentiated them from their Celtic neighbors/enemies. Among these attributes were a respect for the individual over the group; the combined use of statutory and common law; respect for private property; personal responsibility; and the recognition of equal or near equal rights for women. Notice how these aspects influenced even religious choices. After all, there are very fundamental reasons why the Germanic areas of Europe are protestant, whereas the Gallic regions are catholic and the Slavic ones orthodox.
A surprising number of people – most especially on the left – seem to have forgotten that this Germanic cultural foundation, combined with the explosive growth of the industrial economy, was the key to integrating successive and massive waves of immigrants in the latter half of the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries. The fresh influxes of migrants during that period were mostly from non-germanic nations – primarily Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Poland and Russia (if I skipped anybody, please don’t take it personally.) These were people who for the most part were fleeing the grinding poverty of permanent lower class status in their home countries. Feudal customs pertaining to social class and status, along with the tradition of ingrained resistance to social advancement, persisted with significant vigor across Europe (and still do, albeit in reduced form and varying by country in this day and age. NOTE: from personal experience, it’s noticeably more evident in Gallic countries than Germanic ones.)
People with the courage to leave all that they had ever known in exchange for a chance to start fresh had the necessary mindset to embrace a new life. The factory environment – with its respect for rules and regulations applicable equally to all employees, rewards for efficiency, productivity and extraordinary contribution, and opportunity for financial and social advancement – not only vaulted these non-Germanic immigrants into a middle class existence, but proved to be the perfect training ground for helping them join the American melting pot. People from non-German nations and cultures learned thru their factory jobs that the Rule of Law trumps the Rule of Man; that what you earn belongs to you; that you are responsible for your own success or lack thereof; and that what you gain from your hard work and achievements cannot be denied you either by archaic custom or by someone with inherited privilege and position, as there was no multi-generational hereditary aristocracy to lord over you and deprive you by ‘divine right’ or medieval tradition of what you had earned from the sweat of your brow.
It was these same Germanic cultural traits that most readily embraced the organizational and social principles necessary for the rapid growth of industrialization, both in America and Europe. One can readily observe, for instance, that it was in the Germanic states where the Industrial Revolution advanced most rapidly and successfully, while the non-Germanic regions struggled much more with industrialization and lagged quite far behind.
But concluding that America is essentially a Germanic parochial state within broader Western Civilization would be a mistake. To understand why, we need to examine factor #3 .
It wasn’t just the non-Germanic European peoples who left a dead-end social and economic status in their home countries, but the Germanic ones as well. When they came to America – a country whose birth occurred at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution – all of them made a conscious decision to join something new, young, fresh and growing and, most importantly, to leave their roots behind.
Toynbee observed in his travels to America that immigrants to their new land – the 1st generation migrants – clung to their original country’s language and traditions rather strongly. However, their children – the 2nd generation of migrants – while using their parent’s language at home, would almost invariably use their adopted country’s language and traditions as a first choice, and that their own children – the 3rd generation – would almost always forget their grandparent’s tongue and customs. We have all seen and experienced this ourselves and can observe it in today’s descendants of more contemporary immigrations from Cuba, India, Vietnam, Japan, Iran, China, Puerto Rico and Haiti, where the second generation is already quite thoroughly Americanized. The 1st generation is almost always the driving force behind this, even if they tend to cling to many of the old ways and their original language.
What benefits and losses have we and our ancestors incurred for this?
Granted, the Germans and British make better beer than we do. The Irish and Scots have better whiskey (though I am a big fan of Jack Daniels – within reason, folks; I’m not a lush. 😉 ) The French, Spanish and Italians have better wine. The Swiss, Italians and Belgians have delicious chocolate – truly like nothing we have here. And there are uniquely beautiful things that Europeans have inherited from their history and traditions – castles, cathedrals, ancient cities and towns, art, sculpture, literature, music…we could go on with these comparisons for quite a while. Yet for the purposes of this discussion, none of it matters in the slightest.
We are, in summary, the product of borrowing features from Europe’s civilization (such as statutory codes and common law practices, individualism and natural rights, early democratic and republican governing concepts from the Greeks and Romans passed down and gradually refined over the centuries), deliberately discarding everything else and modifying, enhancing and improving on what we took to make it our own. America is a BREAKAWAY culture that has become a civilization in its own right, separate from Western civilization – which is more appropriately defined as Europe west of the Elbe.
This is why Europeans find us rather alien, incomprehensible and even frightening. We have become so different from them in so many ways that we can no longer be said to share a common culture. And, truth be told, though we have lost some genuinely beautiful things by discarding the past of our ancestors, we have gained quite a bit in return. After all – it was not Europe that split the atom, invented the transistor or laser or personal computer, just to name a few of this civilization’s achievements. To make the contrast as stark as it can be: America started in 1789 as a strip of coastal forest and alluvial plain on the northeast edge of the continent, with 3-4 million people plowing a few acres of rocky New England ground to raise a crop, riding horses or carriages to get around and carrying muskets to defend themselves. 180 years later – the lives of two long-lived men – this same country planted six flags on the moon. (SUCK IT, EUROCOMMIES!)
It should be obvious at this point why I will be using not just Toynbee but also Strauss & Howe’s Generational Cycle in this series of commentaries, as their theory is so well suited in application to dynamic societies – ones where there is no rigid social structure or hierarchy supported by hidebound tradition to confine a culture’s citizenry to predetermined lifestyles and associations.
And now that we have fully defined the ‘Object of our Inquiry’, we will be able to proceed to the point of the discussion – assessing where American civilization stands at this point in its history. The situation is one worth examining in depth, as there are more and more people – not just pundits and talking heads in the MSM, but among an already large and continually increasing number of the regular citizenry – who are openly discussing the possibility of a breakup of America into separate states and the likelihood of civil insurrection or even war.
I, for one, thought that things could never again be as bad in my lifetime as they were in the 1970’s. However, nobody back then was talking about ‘echoes of 1860’ in our daily civil and political discourse, whereas nowadays it’s become a genuine and widespread concern.
America has had crises, tumult and upheaval before. We have found a way to survive and recover from them all. But it seems fair to ask nowadays: is this time different from any of the last ones? And we should also ask ourselves more broadly:
Where are we going as a civilization?
How did we get to this point?
Is our civilization still growing and evolving, or is it dying?
Organized religion is clearly waning as a rallying point for a growing plurality of citizens. We are also losing confidence in our political and spiritual leadership. Have we reached a point of no return? If yes, what happens next? If no, how do we move forward?
We’ll begin this discussion in depth in the next essay.