The '60s Started in 1951?

I’m always fascinated by the “beginnings of our discontent”, i.e. when the ‘60s really started.  I would say the pivotal years were 1948-1954 as reflected in our art, music, film and liturgy (the canaries in the coal mine)...


The categories of when things changed: 

1. Religion (1947) This is hard to pinpoint, but changing the liturgy is, at base, an expression of dissatisfaction and it started by Pope Pius in ’47, increased in ’55, and the mass was made nearly unrecognizable by ’68. So the roots of the ‘60s discontent started in 1947 in the Church. A Mass that was stable and almost changeless for 400 years suddenly needed a lot of work and tinkering apparently. On birth control the Church started backing down in ’55 with acceptance of the rhythm method. 

2. Art (1948) In the late ‘40s we started getting ugly, nonsensical art. “Abstract expressionism” became popular. Another sign of unrest, dissatisfaction, and societal disease. 

3. Books. (1951 decline started with instant success of angsty “Catcher in the Rye”)

4. Music  (1952-53...some music critics say the last time the best music was also the most popular music came during the Big Band era of the ‘30s and ‘40s... which ended with rock and roll about 1952-ish.)

5. Movies (beginning in 1955 expressions of angst and dissatisfaction became big hits) 

6. Politics (1960? JFK appealed to an public more interested in youth/appearance than substance)

7. Family (1964) Divorces, the ultimate expression of discontent, seemed to take off about then. 

8. Television (1968); a lagging indicator. 

So really the cultural fire of the ‘60s were lit by the long fuse of the ‘50s.  I guess similarly the ‘80s return to conservatism were fueled by the long fuse of pent-up dissatisfaction that began in 1968 with the “silent majority” that elected Nixon. From ’68 to ’80 there was the fuse and then Reagan burst on the scene. 

One could say that a return to normalcy and conservatism will take 12 years based on those numbers. The pent-up dissatisfaction showed up in 2016 with the election of Trump (similar to Nixon’s ’68 win for the silent majority) but then Nixon was unsuccessful and we had Jimmy Carter. It took a dozen years to get real change. Similarly twelve years from 2016 would mean we have an opportunity for a new era around 2028 if that pattern holds. Nixon wasn’t able to get anything half-way conservative done in his years because it was too soon; similarly there was nothing Trump could do in his first term, having been handcuffed by the deep state and his own deep state appointments. 

The interesting thing is whether the elites will even allow a reformer to take office ever again. They have more tools for control than in, say, 1980. They own big business in a way they never did before, they have a very compliant press, they are better able to censor speech they don’t like and they can also inflict their will via the justice system.  Lawyers are more powerful than during the ‘70s, to the point they are able to “lawfare” people who even question election results. Almost all of Trump’s lawyers have been arrested. 

On paper, the Democrats have a series of incredible advantages in just about every way possible except for Divine approval. From legal strength, to fundraising, to having a more unified party (Republicans have split between MAGA and establishment), they hold all the cards except for the thin reed of the Supreme Court. Seventy-five percent of lawyers are registered Democrat and they are a major financial pillar within Democrat fundraising. 

“In this world you will have trouble, but worry not, for I have overcome the world.” --gospel of John

The Decline and Fall of Borders

If there’s a “theory of everything”, the cause of our dysfunction, it could be that nowadays we abhor borders of any kind.  Most obviously the border between us and Mexico. But also the border between man and woman (trans cult). There’s the border between orthodoxy and heresy, with many bishops even within the church advocating for relaxation between the border of sexuality in marriage versus gay sex. There’s the loss of border between politics and business, and between politics and our justice system. There’s the loss of border between what’s considered crime and not crime: cities often look the other way during BLM riots and have effectively decriminalized shoplifting and drug use by never arresting or prosecuting. The border between Catholicism and Protestantism is often attempted to be breached by liberalizing elements within the Catholic Church, hence the churches nowadays that look like warehouse and childish stained glass windows representing nothing. We don’t like the border between hard doctrine, like the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, softening the edges until there are no more edges. We don’t like borders in trade so we trade with China and wake up to find they make all our pharmaceuticals. We don’t like borders between people, borders that can be defended in the event of violence by self-defense using a gun, so the Left wants to inflict gun control on us. We abhor the borders of staying within a financial budget, and the government spends far more than it takes in with no notice of the nation’s balance sheet. 

A case where a border is ferociously defended is the border of the womb. No one is safe from abortion if they’re on the wrong side of that border wall. 

The DNC Civil War

Interesting commentary and speculation from Tom Luongo on the internal Democrat civil war:

This morning we learned Gavin Newsom was funneling money to Chinese biolabs with Joe Biden’s approval. This is clearly open civil war within the DNC.

There’s been a split in the DNC since they brought Obama in to be the "great black hope of globalism" and they forced Hillary to sideline herself in the primaries back in 2008. Hillary sidelined herself to be Obama’s Secretary of State because Davos (the Euro-based, Soros-ish, communistic elites) had already chosen him to be president because McCain had already been chosen to run against him and McCain was never going to win.

So Clinton drops out early and they tell her “after two terms of Obama it’ll be your turn”. And then Trump won, which is why she’s so bitter, but it also set up this weird process where Obama was president but not head of DNC. Clinton was, and she controlled all the money, the DNC was in debt to her, etc... That was the deal in 2008, Clinton stays in control of DNC while Obama becomes president. That division has been simmering for 15 years now. And every time you see Hillary come out of the woodwork, you see her attacking the Obama wing of the DNC.

She still wants to be president, to be back in the club. She’s a neocon, not a European-style neoliberal. Neocons and neoliberals basically want the same thing but from different directions. Neocons believe in going out and grabbing collateral through war; they care about war first and territorial control far more than the financial, redistribution stuff.

Neoliberals on the other hand, with roots to old Europe, still believe in a colonial-style, mercantilist system to enslave commodity producers. Neoliberals are far more communist in their ideology than neoconservatives and have a chip on their shoulder as a lot of them have direct times to Ukraine. The Clintons, by comparison, are just Arkansas grifters who made good. Obama v Clinton is old European Davos versus Victoria Nuland types.  The dividing line is Israel, and what Israel wants vis-a-vis Iran. The Iran nuclear deal was Obama’s thing, it was Europe’s thing, whereas the neocons in the US were hopping mad about this because they let Iran off the mat. Democrats have been fighting about this since 2014, and on how to destroy Russia.

The knives are out for Biden on both sides, both parties within the DNC want him out. The question is how to deal with the succession? So the things you seeing hitting the media at this time, the stories and headlines, are the evidence of move/countermove chess game. It’s clear that one side wants to replace Biden with Newsom but they have to sideline Harris and I’m not sure she wants to be replaced. No one likes her but who cares? No one liked Joe Biden and he wound up president. Biden was forced to step aside to allow Hillary to take job in ’16, and now they want the same thing to happen this time with Harris stepping aside to allow Newsom to run but I don’t know that Harris has that in her. The headlines coming out now about Newsom funding biolabs in China suggest somebody is getting in on this thing - could it be Kamala? It might be.

The Clinton side want to control the White House. Biden was the perfect go-between - a neocon all of his life, dirty as all get out in Ukraine, and Obama’s boy. So the perfect vessel for everybody to get what they want. The idea was, “we’re going to restore power after four years of Trump.”

But all Kamala has to do is refuse to resign, and if Kamala’s daughter suddenly takes an internship overseas then Harris is definitely not stepping aside, so that’s something to watch for.

Most Disappointing (And Pleasant Surprises) Among Leaders Over Past Decade

Pondered my “most disappointing individuals” list over the past decade (and most positively surprising list). The criteria has to start with my familiarity with them and my sense of their moral character. Thus Anthony Fauci is out since I knew nothing about him prior to the pandemic. 

George W. Bush is sort of the pinnacle of disappointing leaders. 

I would say two that are very high on the list would be Francis Collins, a Christian believer (and liar) at the head of the National Health Institute. He resigned in disgrace not long ago. 

Another would be Bill Barr, who had given a speech at Notre Dame on religious and moral character but who has audaciously lied and covered up over the past few years. Few people are as powerful and as disappointing in combination. 

Some would say Mike Pence, and he certainly would qualify if I thought he was smart enough to be wicked. I think he comes by his being used by the deep state “honestly”, meaning dumbly. But I could be wrong given his naked ambition in wanting to be VP and now running for potus. 

Some would say Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney.  Romney, yes, I suppose although I never trusted him that much to start with given his powers of changing with with the wind. Mitch is mostly about keeping power, so I’m not disappointed in him either. Turtles gonna turtle. 

If you look at the big corruptions of the last decade: Covid, FBI, and elections, you’d have to add James Comey who supposedly is Catholic. 

Jonah Goldberg (now of the Dispatch but it mostly applies to those at National Review too) is high on the list given his total disinterest in the rule of law with regard to Jan 6rs, social media censorship, Russia hoax, etc... As a group were remarkably comfortable with the Deep State as long as it was targeting Trump which as such show they have few principles. 

Biden certainly qualifies since he was so much worse in terms of character and ideology than I ever suspected but he wouldn’t make the top cut since, after all, he’s a Demoncrat. 

Donald Trump surprised me on the upside, so he’s one of the few who were better than I’d expected post-2015 (he benefitted by starting from a low base with me). Matt Gaetz is shockingly better than I ever thought he’d be; I had inadvertently ceded my opinion of him to the zeitgeist and the deep state. Rand Paul I knew was great already and most of the covid-era heroes were unknown to me beforehand. Darren Beattie and Revolver News came out of nowhere so I couldn't say they surprised me. 

In the end I would go with these as the Most Disappointing:  

1. Francis Collins

2. Jonah Goldberg 

3. Bill Barr

4. James Comey

5. Joe Biden 

And I would go with these as Most Surprising to Upside: 

1. Matt Gaetz

2. Donald Trump

3. Epoch Times newspaper 

4. Steve Bannon 

I'm surely missing a lot of people on both lists. 

Does 2024 Election Matter?

Charles Haywood had an interesting response when asked by an interviewer: “I don’t think it matters who is sitting in that [presidential] chair next year, since our problems are so deep-rooted now. Do you agree?” 

He answered: 

Certainly from that perspective - can the person elected solve our problems? - to ask that question is to answer it and the answer is “no”. A person from the Left can’t solve the problems (though he would perceive the problems differently), both because the problems are extremely difficult if not impossible to solve, as well as the problem of controlling the administrative state. The rightwing person has even an bigger set of problems because the administrative state is set against him and even if he were able to promulgate a vision for fixing the problems not a single thing of those things could be done, even if he were more disciplined than Trump. Even if Trump had the discipline and follow-through it wouldn’t have mattered simply because the administrative state was against him.

That said it does matter in the large scheme of things since the presidency is perceived as the ring of power in the American system. What you see historically is that people will struggle over a symbol of power even if everyone agrees it doesn’t have the power to do what they think, because it matters what the symbol is, and it matters that ultimately that symbol might be transmuted into real power.  So while it doesn’t matter who gets elected next year in the sense of who’s going to implement an agenda, it certainly matters as where we’re heading down certain paths we wouldn’t otherwise  go (this assumes that a Tim Scott or Marco Rubio doesn’t get elected, both of whom aren’t symbols of change and have no symbolic value).

Trump, for all his flaws, has the virtue of clarifying where everybody stands. If Trump were to win the election, which doesn’t seem particularly likely, the Left would be unwilling to accept that defeat even though the defeat would be more symbolic than anything else. Trump would accelerate things, reveal certain things about the political situation that no one else would. He would make a difference in the sense that “things would go differently”, rather than “he could make a difference”.

**

Issue 1 got soundly defeated. 57%-43%. Not surprising given that most people want direct democracy rather than a republican democracy (direct democracy, also known as mob rule, allows minority rights to get squashed, meaning in the future religious liberties could be taken away by a slim majority). 

Leftist groups were super motivated given abortion is their key issue and now in November now all they have to do is get 50.1% of the vote to amend the Constitution and make abortion legal.  I figured the issue would fail but not by that margin. Maybe the Republican hope was that they could fly it under the Dem radar but that’s like trying to get dawn past a rooster. Jacob Dreisen says that the simple thing is that there’s not a united opposition to the Democrats, that there’s essentially no representation for those pushing back against the Regime. It’s just tiny pockets of House members and three or four senators. And Trump of course but he needs Congress to do anything substantive.  

Let’s score modern day politics:

2008: Defeat

2012: Defeat

2016: Victory

2018: Defeat (Senate race)

2020: Defeat

2022: Mixed (JD Vance won; Kari Lake loss was big)

2023: Defeat (Issue 1) 

So a mixed record (assuming it even matters). Looking at Ohio results alone: loss, loss, win, loss, win, tie, loss, so Ohio is 2-4-1 over the past seven meaningful elections. The US as a whole is 1-5-1. 

There are plenty of grounds for pessimism which is the easy and broad course to take, which means we have to try to steer towards the narrow course. The challenge is to be prepared to lose a lot but be cheerful despite it. 

Faces of Ireland: 1996

 

Paris 1996

One score and seven years ago I spent a few hours in Paris.  Here are some shots of the street scene: