Do people read this unironically? I am at the beginning and already is factually wrong. European population continuously grew from the 7th to the 14th century. And the rest seems to have been written by a 19th century 'historian' or someone who only read their books.
I've read a bit more. It's worse. Charlemagne was the grandson of Charles Martel, who famously stopped the largest Umayyad razzia in Europe (and used it to take power, and consolidate both Neustria and Austrasia). His empire was never threatened/invaded by the Umayyad, even after his death. He created the Gascony march, that did threaten the Vascon and the Umayyad before Louis le pieux was defeated by the Vascons, who created the Navarre realm, basically creating a buffer state between the Umayyad and the Carolingian empire. So for sure, they had no impact on wether the Carolingians could maintain power or not. Also, the reason Martel could take power was that the Franks already had a feudal society since at least Clovis. Also, the Carolingians did maintain power, everywhere. The successions divided the realms, but they kept power for a long, long time (I still count Capetian as Carolingian for obvious reasons)
And I'm really not a specialist of this era, I find the 16th-19th century more interesting overall. Basing any arguments on that shaky knowledge is uninteresting to me, so I will stop there, his point might be good, but the argument to reach it will be bad.
Hm. I'm no historian but I think a broader view (ironically a relatively new one) runs counter to the claim that violence is the default. This might be more (*edit) true between empires but as far as humans and nations or proto-states go, archaeological anthropology leans away from the bthe Hobbesian view of the "state of nature" (Solitary, nasty, brutish, and short).
Possibly outside the author's Canon but D Graeber and D Wengrow's book make a pretty compelling case that most human modes of organising, historically speaking, were remarkably amicable (not universally of course) and maintained without such institutions as a monopoly on violence, property rights, and currency.
I'm not going to disagree with the forecast of increasing violence in the near future. I hope against it but the zeitgeist does not favour my wishes. But I do think that it is worth remembering that we have a history of political creativity we have somehow collectively forgotten, which happens to be very convenient (not in an by conspiratorial sense) for folks on the upper rungs of modern power structures.
Anyhow, the aforementioned book was the first I've read in a while that really rewired my personally held mythos (lowercase) and I do recommend it
So this is the argument that there's a path dependence in how peaceful a civilisation is. I think whatisalthist argued this as well - that Christianity (with largely pacifist founders) did a lot to moderate Rome, and then the Catholic Church (which some argue is the rump of the Roman empire) moderated its region of influence.
whatifalthist is a bit western centric (and a bit ... odd and extreme in some ways), but it seems reasonable, you could argue that India and China are also historically pretty peaceful (more so even than Europe), internal issues aside (yeah, Taiping rebellion, the 1940s and 50s, and any other Chinese civil conflict for example). 2 nuclear powers with the ability to rapidly create well over a million strong armies (India and China) can be having actual deaths on a contested border (e.g. the 2020 border clash) and it's no real concern, whereas in some regions a war can basically start over a mean tweet. The argument is that culture / institutions / path dependence matters.
This is true but also those that embrace violence to closely are destined to eventually fall via violence. Power through fear has very few people trying to catch it on the way down.
Everyone can have that violent tendency, the trick to acknowledge it and work around it.
It is a core tenant in Taoism "All things carry yin yet embrace yang"
I'm sure the author doesn't need to hear "leftist-counter-arguments 101", but the US has not dominated by peace and "through arguments rather than force".
The US has "pushed for liberalism", but only when it aligned with economic interests. There's a long list of brutal dictatorships and Islamic extremists propped-up by the US.
To give one data point (lesser known, I think), check out the book "The Jakarta Method" and learn about the ~1M Indonesians killed in this era of Pax Americana.
That being said, I agree with the author on the Enlightenment principles and can see the world getting worse in this regard.
Civilization is violent. The Roman Empire maintained it's economy through slavery. The Catholic Church started the crusades. This is article is the usual dumb reductionist thinking that people have been spewing every year I've been alive.
> But I feel the deeper threat is internal. A generation of critical theory and identity politics has captured universities, media, and cultural institutions. The Western tradition is now taught as a system of oppression rather than the foundation of the very liberties that make the critique possible.
It always is this. The left is destroying Western Civilization. How can anyone believe this bullshit when it's 2026 and the Right is firing professors, silencing the press, and arresting people for publicly disagreeing with them. What world do you live in that you can honestly believe this.
>Civilization is violent. The Roman Empire maintained it's economy through slavery.
So? Slavery was the baseline back then. The question is whether the Roman Empire was more peaceful/less violent than the alternative, not whether they had slavery or some degree of violence.
>The Catholic Church started the crusades.
After centuries of arab expansion conquering over 6 centuries pre-existing Christian cities and populations in the wider middle east.
> The left is destroying Western Civilization. How can anyone believe this bullshit when it's 2026 and the Right is firing professors, silencing the press, and arresting people for publicly disagreeing with them
The "left" also reduced Venezuela from the richest country on the continent to a brutal regime not long ago.
Seeing the world as "left" vs "right" is imo not helpful. It's too easy to fall into the trap of defending the "left" because you also identify with sane progressive taxes for example, and then identity confuses you and now you're trying to pretend that people getting physically assaulted on campus is ok because the left is mostly right about progressive taxes or whatever.
The crazy-left are evil because they are confused.
The crazy-right are evil because they are confused.
Two things can both be true. The left was also firing professors. They weren't arresting people for publicly disagreeing with them; they were just showing up as "black block"/antifa and trying to physically intimidate them.
Neither side are angels. Neither side really believe in your free speech if you disagree with them.
Now, if you want to argue that the right is currently the greater threat, then sure, I can probably agree with that. The two sides try to push the other around when in power, and play the victim when out of it, and the right is currently in power. And they're currently more aggressive than I ever saw the left be. Still, the left isn't really the side of free speech either.
But a hypocrite that pays lip service to free speech might be better than someone who openly doesn't care for it. At least the principle remains respected.
Meh. The principle remains "respected" with lip service. That's not respecting the principle; that's respecting the principle's ability to persuade people to vote for you.
I mean, look, there are conservatives who actually do care about free speech for everyone, not just their allies. But the "conservatives" currently in power, who claimed to be "free speech absolutists", seem more interested in control of speech as a source of power, rather than in actual free speech for all.
Cherry picking. The other side claimed to be the only ones to care about "black lives" while at the same time supporting burning down black owned businesses, and spreading covid during the worst of the pandemic, while being super angry about the people who didn't wear masks.
Don't fall into the trap of grouping into left/right. Individual behaviors must be judged separately: going into crowded spaces unmasked during the high of covid? Bad. Burning down a business? Bad. Getting someone fired for speech? Bad. Etc.
See how easy and clear that is? Nothing about left or right.
He glosses over Muslim history and al-Andalus with a "the Muslims were driven out of Spain" like Spain itself wasn't Muslim for almost 800 years. And then, the Enlightenment created the most peaceful time in human history, really? Seems like mutual assured destruction is what makes peace, not sound philosophy.
People are forgetful and argumentative, by nature. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can have nice things.
The answer to Liberalism dying isn't more Liberalism. Liberalism is dying precisely because Liberalism is wrong or at minimum, unsustainable. The attitude of the writer is exactly like the fetishists of every dead ideology, in particular Libertarians who argue "Real capitalism hasn't been tried yet!" or Communists who argue "Real communism hasn't been tried yet." These people, Liberals (capital L) included, need to get real and understand that reality is much more complicated than their specific simplistic idea of Utopia.
To save Liberalism, rather, we must first accept Liberalism is wrong. Then we must discuss what was wrong about it. Then fix those things to invent whatever ruling ideology comes next.
Here's a hint and it comes from his own writing. The "critical theory" and "identity politics" coming from within are directly a result of the nihilism and pathological individualism, respectively, that is born out of Liberalism. The US is degenerating because it lacks a prescribed morality (an unequivocal definition of what is right and wrong) and a prescribed universal identity, respectively. Things that Liberalism eschews, and things that people will find or invent elsewhere despite how many times you bemoan the death of enlightenment ideals.
That anti-liberalism was born out of liberalism doesn't make liberalism wrong.
It's like saying all dinosaurs were birds because birds evolved from dinosaurs. It just doesn't follow that a weird offshoot now defines the entire group retroactively back in time. It makes no sense to think like this logically.
Your argument is unironically "real Liberalism hasn't been tried yet." "critical theory" and "identity politics" are not "weird offshoots," they are unavoidable consequences of Liberalism. No matter how many times you try Liberalism it will degenerate into exactly the current situation we are facing now.
Failing to acknowledge the structural flaws of Liberalism just opens up an opportunity for ideological revolution. If the adherents of Liberalism prefer moderation, they better had start acknowledging how it's failing people. "Just Liberal harder" won't work forever.
So let us return to the matrilineal, matrifocal ways developed by those who created and nurtured life before we had a language that covered all of our needs and build replacement civilizations from there. Time to get back into the nonbinary animist ways of being.
Is this one of those "threat" predictions that far right nazis and Russians hide behind when they spend their time plotting the downfall of civilization?
You should be careful how you word this "prediction".
Do people read this unironically? I am at the beginning and already is factually wrong. European population continuously grew from the 7th to the 14th century. And the rest seems to have been written by a 19th century 'historian' or someone who only read their books.
I've read a bit more. It's worse. Charlemagne was the grandson of Charles Martel, who famously stopped the largest Umayyad razzia in Europe (and used it to take power, and consolidate both Neustria and Austrasia). His empire was never threatened/invaded by the Umayyad, even after his death. He created the Gascony march, that did threaten the Vascon and the Umayyad before Louis le pieux was defeated by the Vascons, who created the Navarre realm, basically creating a buffer state between the Umayyad and the Carolingian empire. So for sure, they had no impact on wether the Carolingians could maintain power or not. Also, the reason Martel could take power was that the Franks already had a feudal society since at least Clovis. Also, the Carolingians did maintain power, everywhere. The successions divided the realms, but they kept power for a long, long time (I still count Capetian as Carolingian for obvious reasons)
And I'm really not a specialist of this era, I find the 16th-19th century more interesting overall. Basing any arguments on that shaky knowledge is uninteresting to me, so I will stop there, his point might be good, but the argument to reach it will be bad.
Hm. I'm no historian but I think a broader view (ironically a relatively new one) runs counter to the claim that violence is the default. This might be more (*edit) true between empires but as far as humans and nations or proto-states go, archaeological anthropology leans away from the bthe Hobbesian view of the "state of nature" (Solitary, nasty, brutish, and short).
Possibly outside the author's Canon but D Graeber and D Wengrow's book make a pretty compelling case that most human modes of organising, historically speaking, were remarkably amicable (not universally of course) and maintained without such institutions as a monopoly on violence, property rights, and currency.
I'm not going to disagree with the forecast of increasing violence in the near future. I hope against it but the zeitgeist does not favour my wishes. But I do think that it is worth remembering that we have a history of political creativity we have somehow collectively forgotten, which happens to be very convenient (not in an by conspiratorial sense) for folks on the upper rungs of modern power structures.
Anyhow, the aforementioned book was the first I've read in a while that really rewired my personally held mythos (lowercase) and I do recommend it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything?wprov=s...
So this is the argument that there's a path dependence in how peaceful a civilisation is. I think whatisalthist argued this as well - that Christianity (with largely pacifist founders) did a lot to moderate Rome, and then the Catholic Church (which some argue is the rump of the Roman empire) moderated its region of influence.
whatifalthist is a bit western centric (and a bit ... odd and extreme in some ways), but it seems reasonable, you could argue that India and China are also historically pretty peaceful (more so even than Europe), internal issues aside (yeah, Taiping rebellion, the 1940s and 50s, and any other Chinese civil conflict for example). 2 nuclear powers with the ability to rapidly create well over a million strong armies (India and China) can be having actual deaths on a contested border (e.g. the 2020 border clash) and it's no real concern, whereas in some regions a war can basically start over a mean tweet. The argument is that culture / institutions / path dependence matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
This is true but also those that embrace violence to closely are destined to eventually fall via violence. Power through fear has very few people trying to catch it on the way down.
Everyone can have that violent tendency, the trick to acknowledge it and work around it.
It is a core tenant in Taoism "All things carry yin yet embrace yang"
I read “Humankind” by Rutger Bregman and now think this is not true.
I'm sure the author doesn't need to hear "leftist-counter-arguments 101", but the US has not dominated by peace and "through arguments rather than force".
The US has "pushed for liberalism", but only when it aligned with economic interests. There's a long list of brutal dictatorships and Islamic extremists propped-up by the US.
To give one data point (lesser known, I think), check out the book "The Jakarta Method" and learn about the ~1M Indonesians killed in this era of Pax Americana.
That being said, I agree with the author on the Enlightenment principles and can see the world getting worse in this regard.
Depends on whether you are a bonobo or a chimpanzee.
Civilization is violent. The Roman Empire maintained it's economy through slavery. The Catholic Church started the crusades. This is article is the usual dumb reductionist thinking that people have been spewing every year I've been alive.
> But I feel the deeper threat is internal. A generation of critical theory and identity politics has captured universities, media, and cultural institutions. The Western tradition is now taught as a system of oppression rather than the foundation of the very liberties that make the critique possible.
It always is this. The left is destroying Western Civilization. How can anyone believe this bullshit when it's 2026 and the Right is firing professors, silencing the press, and arresting people for publicly disagreeing with them. What world do you live in that you can honestly believe this.
>Civilization is violent. The Roman Empire maintained it's economy through slavery.
So? Slavery was the baseline back then. The question is whether the Roman Empire was more peaceful/less violent than the alternative, not whether they had slavery or some degree of violence.
>The Catholic Church started the crusades.
After centuries of arab expansion conquering over 6 centuries pre-existing Christian cities and populations in the wider middle east.
> The left is destroying Western Civilization. How can anyone believe this bullshit when it's 2026 and the Right is firing professors, silencing the press, and arresting people for publicly disagreeing with them
The "left" also reduced Venezuela from the richest country on the continent to a brutal regime not long ago.
Seeing the world as "left" vs "right" is imo not helpful. It's too easy to fall into the trap of defending the "left" because you also identify with sane progressive taxes for example, and then identity confuses you and now you're trying to pretend that people getting physically assaulted on campus is ok because the left is mostly right about progressive taxes or whatever.
The crazy-left are evil because they are confused.
The crazy-right are evil because they are confused.
Two things can both be true. The left was also firing professors. They weren't arresting people for publicly disagreeing with them; they were just showing up as "black block"/antifa and trying to physically intimidate them.
Neither side are angels. Neither side really believe in your free speech if you disagree with them.
Now, if you want to argue that the right is currently the greater threat, then sure, I can probably agree with that. The two sides try to push the other around when in power, and play the victim when out of it, and the right is currently in power. And they're currently more aggressive than I ever saw the left be. Still, the left isn't really the side of free speech either.
> Neither side really believe in your free speech
Only one side claimed to be "free speech absolutists".
Which makes them hypocrites.
But a hypocrite that pays lip service to free speech might be better than someone who openly doesn't care for it. At least the principle remains respected.
Meh. The principle remains "respected" with lip service. That's not respecting the principle; that's respecting the principle's ability to persuade people to vote for you.
I mean, look, there are conservatives who actually do care about free speech for everyone, not just their allies. But the "conservatives" currently in power, who claimed to be "free speech absolutists", seem more interested in control of speech as a source of power, rather than in actual free speech for all.
Cherry picking. The other side claimed to be the only ones to care about "black lives" while at the same time supporting burning down black owned businesses, and spreading covid during the worst of the pandemic, while being super angry about the people who didn't wear masks.
Don't fall into the trap of grouping into left/right. Individual behaviors must be judged separately: going into crowded spaces unmasked during the high of covid? Bad. Burning down a business? Bad. Getting someone fired for speech? Bad. Etc.
See how easy and clear that is? Nothing about left or right.
He glosses over Muslim history and al-Andalus with a "the Muslims were driven out of Spain" like Spain itself wasn't Muslim for almost 800 years. And then, the Enlightenment created the most peaceful time in human history, really? Seems like mutual assured destruction is what makes peace, not sound philosophy.
People are forgetful and argumentative, by nature. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can have nice things.
The answer to Liberalism dying isn't more Liberalism. Liberalism is dying precisely because Liberalism is wrong or at minimum, unsustainable. The attitude of the writer is exactly like the fetishists of every dead ideology, in particular Libertarians who argue "Real capitalism hasn't been tried yet!" or Communists who argue "Real communism hasn't been tried yet." These people, Liberals (capital L) included, need to get real and understand that reality is much more complicated than their specific simplistic idea of Utopia.
To save Liberalism, rather, we must first accept Liberalism is wrong. Then we must discuss what was wrong about it. Then fix those things to invent whatever ruling ideology comes next.
Here's a hint and it comes from his own writing. The "critical theory" and "identity politics" coming from within are directly a result of the nihilism and pathological individualism, respectively, that is born out of Liberalism. The US is degenerating because it lacks a prescribed morality (an unequivocal definition of what is right and wrong) and a prescribed universal identity, respectively. Things that Liberalism eschews, and things that people will find or invent elsewhere despite how many times you bemoan the death of enlightenment ideals.
That anti-liberalism was born out of liberalism doesn't make liberalism wrong.
It's like saying all dinosaurs were birds because birds evolved from dinosaurs. It just doesn't follow that a weird offshoot now defines the entire group retroactively back in time. It makes no sense to think like this logically.
Your argument is unironically "real Liberalism hasn't been tried yet." "critical theory" and "identity politics" are not "weird offshoots," they are unavoidable consequences of Liberalism. No matter how many times you try Liberalism it will degenerate into exactly the current situation we are facing now.
Failing to acknowledge the structural flaws of Liberalism just opens up an opportunity for ideological revolution. If the adherents of Liberalism prefer moderation, they better had start acknowledging how it's failing people. "Just Liberal harder" won't work forever.
And the default civilization is violent.
So let us return to the matrilineal, matrifocal ways developed by those who created and nurtured life before we had a language that covered all of our needs and build replacement civilizations from there. Time to get back into the nonbinary animist ways of being.
I take it you haven't studied those cultures you deify in any great detail have you.
Nah. I prefer actual medical science keeping me from dying of typhus and cholera to praying to the spirits, but you do you.
thats what all the monkeys think
The distinction isn't meaningful to me because I feel like one of the humans from Planet of the Apes here.
The West is about to learn this lesson the hard way. Rivers of blood in the cobblestoned streets of rural European hamlets within the next 5-10 years.
Is this one of those "threat" predictions that far right nazis and Russians hide behind when they spend their time plotting the downfall of civilization?
You should be careful how you word this "prediction".