There is no one cultural shit-lib cultural artifact that speaks to me of the change in the leadership class of the American Empire than Star Trek; This thread will explore this parallel transformation below:
Star Trek's history can be divided into 5 major phases;
Star Trek "Progress"
Star Trek "Cold Warrior"
Star Trek "Science"
Star Trek "Transition"
Star Trek "DEI/Collapse"
The Original Series of Star Trek is the embodyment of self-confident Progressivism. It's about a band of wise brothers served by a support staff of attractive women conquering the galaxy by their inherant superiority in all respects. Absolutely secure in their moral judgements.
"Star Trek Progress"
Between 1969 and 1979 when the first movies were made; Progressive culture had moved on. The band of brothers finds itself now in civilizational conflict; still absolutely confident in their identity, but no longer in their superiority.
"Star Trek Cold War"
By the time Star Trek TNG was being made; Progressives no longer saw themselves as a brotherhood in conflict, but rather a group of gender-neatural technocrats here in a post-political universe here to solve problems with science and diplomacy.
"Star Trek Science"
The actual conflict in the show [and the Progressive mind] is to justify their universal dominace by display of their moral suprememcy. In 1987 when TNG launched they clearly believed in themsleves, by 1997 when DS9 launched the "Maquis vs. Federation" arc, this confidence was gone.
This period of Star Trek; with DS9 and Voyager airing together, is charectorized by a continuous decline in self confidence and a growing fear of what letting go of the mandate of heaven looks like.
"Star Trek Transition"
By 1998 and the making of Star Trek Insurect; the loss of confidence is complete. All future content is about the humiliation and punishment of the "band of brothers" for ever having dared to rule the universe to begin with.
"Star Trek DEI/Collapse"
In the end, the creators cannot resist the urge to go back and vandalize the art they cared so deeply about as children; not content to tell knew stories about new charectors, instead the bug-man-death-drive takes hold of their art.
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The people of the American Empire today live haunted by the ashes of futures which were promised, but never materialized. This thread will review some of these unrealized dreams, which haunt us today.
The first of these unrealized dreams was a world order where nations remained sovereign & distinct, but took joy in mutual appreciation and cooperation and resolved their differences through negotiation and international instructions the UN, WTO, and ICC.
After 70 years of "the post war order", it is obvious to just about everyone that this vision has failed on all counts, and that the law of nations remains unaltered. The Nomos of the earth has prevailed over the well-laid plans of the great men of the American century.
Last night @AuronMacintyre & @OGRolandRat crossed paths on an episode of Cigar Stream. As Auron goes around and does the circuit of podcasts to sell the book, this is the one you should listen to. AA interrogates the work in a way others simply will not.
Here are my thoughts:
Auron MacIntyre hits hard in this episode what I most appreciate about him as a thinker; the difference between deconstruction for it's own sake, and the effort to re-nest the deeply held values of his people in institutions which will give life to those values.
Auron explains that he felt it necessary to point out in exhaustive detail that the power in the constitution exists in the men who value it as sacred rather than in the constitution itself in order to encourage his target audience to become worthy of sovereignty.
I don't agree that this is actually the reason. This is the public justification, but the pattern of behavior indicates that cultural erasure and the prevention of a coherent opposition is the primary goal, and that amulerating these issues is secondary at best.
The men who built the West were, for the most part, not educated in the sense that Southern is speaking about, and neither were their wives.
There are several foundations of the West and it's greatness, but none are to be found in mass public education, an artifact of the need for soldiers to fight the mass-infantry battles of the 19th and eary 20th centuries.
A poorly understood reason why the US fears "boots on the ground" against an adversary with substantial military capabilities like Russia or Iran is because of the high probability that it would rapidly lead to regime change in the US.
In any actual near-peer confrontation between the US and an adversary, a few things are inevitable. 1) A very large number of body-bags containing American soldiers putting political pressure on the regime in a way that dead Ukrainians just doesn't.
2) Vast pressure from within the military itself to remove the politically appointed leaders of the military with the most competent members of America's martial class, who will immediately become contenders to topple USG.
In Spandril's latest peice titled "The politics of hereditarianism", he touches on a peice of intellectual history that I don't think is broadly understood, but would be very helpful for current opponents of the regime to understand.
🧵
In the 18th & 19th century, European elites found themselves tied up in something of a knot concerning the position of the church:
a) They hated the way the church restrained their personal conduct and diverted the resources of the nation.
b) The church was a rival center of power.
c) The church was a pilar of their governing formula.
d) There was no competing explanation for existance with any credability.