July 2, 2022

No mass action over Roe, ending decade of woke psychosis (until the 2060s)

The most remarkable aspect of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade is the absence of violence, property destruction, rioting, etc. This is the first clear sign that the wave of collective violence of the late 2010s has not only peaked -- in 2020, hard to top that year -- but has entered the fizzling-out phase of the cycle.

That's right -- there is 50-year cycle in mass political violence.

* * *

But first, a necessary overview of how impoverished the online information ecosystem has become after the switch from blogs to social media and podcasts. If you only consumed media, including podcasts, you never heard about the 50-year cycle during all their coverage and takemeistering in reaction to the escalating riots of roughly 2014 onward.

Plenty of content-creators in media / podcasts had read something about it, perhaps, but they can't give contemporary competitors in the takemeister economy credit, without demoting their own status in their petty zero-sum world. And they would get called out for blatantly stealing the idea if they didn't give any credit whatsoever. So they just have to ignore it. This is why they can and do cite dead people -- they're not locked in a zero-sum competition with dead people, or even retired people.

Bloggers acted the opposite way during the blogosphere heyday of the 2000s and early 2010s. We were happy to clue others into some exciting new idea we came across -- and provided a link, a citation, a name, a something, to connect our readers to someone else's ideas. It was not zero-sum, we were all working together toward the same grand project.

And it worked well while the blogosphere was mostly Gen X in its creative and consuming sides, with some hobbyist Boomers to round things out. Once the Millennials started to make up more of the online creators and audiences, though, they ditched blogs in favor of social media and podcasts.

However, unlike their striver ancestors, the Boomers, they weren't doing this as a hobby by people who already had it made in the shade. Nope, the Millennials are way worse off than their Boomer parents, and they have always viewed any form of media labor -- including shitposting on social media, or spitballing takes and reactions on a podcast -- as a career that they ought to be paid a real salary for. At least shitloads of clout online, at most a six-figure or more annual income. "These takes don't write themselves" (yes they do).

So the Gen X blogger was more of a gallery curator, when it came to someone else's stuff -- here's an array of things I find interesting, with an ID tag on each item to give proper credit, and if you like the kinds of things I find and gather in this one place, stop by regularly, the collection on display is never the same. And crucially, if you like some specific item, follow its ID tag to items by that same creator that are outside of my current exhibition.

The Millennial takemeister is more of a pawn-shop operator -- he, or his finders / fencers, collects an array of things in one place, but the browsing audience has no idea where it comes from. This makes it somewhat like the museum exhibit, but without any ID tags, it's impossible for the audience to follow a trail from an item they're currently looking at, to other items by the same creator. I don't mean the original manufacturer -- who may be out of business, who may not have stamped a logo onto their products, etc. -- I mean the source of where this specific item came from.

For the audience, no trails lead outside of the pawn-shop itself. Those sources are highly protected, confidential, etc. Otherwise the customer could cut out the middle-man. The takemeister is not merely a gatekeeper, deciding what goes in vs. what stays out of the collection -- he's *the* connection. You want more? You gotta keep going back to only that shop, since they won't tell you who their suppliers are.

So maybe they're more like drug-dealers for take-junkies, whereas the bloggers were more like the taste-testing / free samples stands for an audience that is a little hungry and curious about different options, but not looking for a fix and a pusher.

* * *

At any rate, Peter Turchin discovered this 50-year cycle in the late 2000s, wrote articles for a popular audience a decade ago (such as this one), and wrote an entire book in 2016 (Ages of Discord). I've been writing about it here for a decade, always trying to get Turchin's name to stick in the reader's memory.

Since this was all very topical during the Trump 2016 campaign year, everyone was familiar with it among the political takes crowd on Twitter and elsewhere, from the edgy NEET shitposters to the wealthy centrist think-tankers.

By 2016, mass political violence was only beginning, so it felt like more of a prediction -- that there would be a SHTF situation around 2020. And right as that happened, everyone pretended not to know Turchin's name, the 50-year cycle, the title of that one book, etc. Someone other than me was proven right, oh no!

Worse, the media-ites rely mostly on emotional appeals to keep their audience hooked and craving stronger doses of The Stuff. So they projected the trend of 2015-2020 indefinitely out into the future.

I knew that was wrong from the outset -- the point of a cycle is that it waxes and wanes, because there are negative feedback loops in the system, not just positive ones that push in the same direction forever. I figured things would lighten up by 2024 and after, based on the previous waves that Turchin documented -- lots of rioting during the second half of the '60s, the very early '70s, and then quickly petering out to nothing for the rest of the '70s. Lots of agitation around WWI, peaking in the race riots of 1919-'20, and quickly fading out during the '20s. And so on.

But it looks like mass violence is wrapping up a couple years earlier than that.

Imagine if the Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade in 2016, the year of mass assaults on Trump rally-goers. Or in 2017, the year of millions pouring into the streets for the Women's March, and the smaller but hotter Charlottesville showdown. Or as late as 2020, the year Democrat mobs burned down multiple major cities to intimidate voters into showing up to the polls.

And yet, in 2022? Absolutely nothing. A handful of professional activists are not a mass action. No mobs, no protests, no property destruction, no violence, no anything. Crucially -- no counter-mobs, counter-protests, or counter-violence, like there had been a few years earlier. No street battles.

There is no other explanation than that the tank has run out of gas. This is the precise dire outcome that the millions of pink pussyhat wearers were apocalyptically warning about back in 2017. Their side has been given free rein to loot, burn down, murder, whatever. They were encouraged by an activist campaign, Jane's Revenge, to stage a night of rage (or whatever it was supposed to be called) on the day that Roe was officially overturned. A week later, and it's still crickets. It's not an obscure issue that only affects a few people, they should be able to mass-recruit like before.

If anything, there ought to be more of them out in the street than when it was only a hypothetical, and they ought to be wreaking more havoc than when they were just concerned but still had Roe v. Wade in place.

People are simply tired of the practice of mass violence and chaos at this point, even if they agree "in theory". This is no different from the exhaustion of would-be Weathermen and Black Panthers by the mid-'70s. Or would-be race-rioters by the mid-1920s. Or would be Civil Warriors by the mid-1870s. Enough already.

* * *

The slow build-up of mass actions, followed by a fairly quick drop-off, and then a period where it seems impossible to spark another wave, suggests some kind of excitable system model. Akin to exercising, sex / orgasm, eating to satiety, drinking / hangover, and so on. Apparently starting right now, and going through the rest of the decade, we're going to be in an activism hangover, having binged / overdosed on it during the second half of the 2010s and the first couple years of the 2020s.

This will face a clean test in 2024, the next presidential election year. If the late 2010s and 2020 were only just the beginning, then '24 is going to literally blow up the entire country. If would-be mob members are exhausted and can't get it up after so many I'M GONNA LOOOOOOT episodes in the recent past, then '24 will be tamer than '20.

I predict '24 will be like 1976 and 1924 -- pretty uneventful compared to the peak of mass violence just a few years before (1968 and '72, 1916 and '20). We already had two consecutive election years with mass violence -- 2016 and '20 -- and that means people will be too tired to do any more in '24.

Now, this is only for the phenomenon of mass violence, civil unrest, etc. Polarization is going to keep going on for awhile, since the partisan reaction to overturning Roe v. Wade is exactly what you'd expect for a still polarized, and more-and-more polarizing country. It just won't be expressed in mob violence.

Nor does this have to do with the fragmenting of the American empire, something that is going to continue for decades and centuries.

I'm strictly talking about huge crowds of people fucking shit up in public. Or, for that matter, the battle of words on TV, online, etc. Neither side is as fiery about this as they would've been just 2 years ago, let alone 5. Imagine Trump's first year he ends Roe v. Wade -- the endless dunking and victory laps the right would be running online. Now, they're both reacting in the expected directions, but to a far smaller magnitude.

At some point, the hangover will wear off, we'll be back to a baseline level of inclination toward mob violence. And then it'll start to rise again, if Turchin's model continues to be correct, in the mid-2060s, peaking around 2070, and then going into another hangover all over again.

As a final, lesser prediction, I don't think there's going to be any Black Lives Matter crap among Democrats in '24 either, in contrast to 2016 and '20. It would be like signs about "Remember Watergate" or "US out of 'Nam" in 1976. Sorry, those signs belong to '68 and '72, by '76 nobody could keep it going any longer. It was over for radicals then, and it's more or less already over for radicals again (until the lead-up to 2070).


  1. Seems like power players who understand human nature and human cycles are advantaged in timing substantial decisions during the cool down period.

    Its the perfect opportunity to push through as many wins as possible before the next excitement cycle.

  2. Turchin's name for this is the "fathers-and-sons" cycle, in various writings (like War and Peace and War). Different from the integrative vs. disintegrative phases of the structural-demographic model. And different from the asabiyah / ethnogenesis / imperiogenesis cycle.

    Here, the idea is there's an oscillation between a generation -- the fathers -- that has undergone societal trauma from civil unrest, and behaves itself afterwards. But then their sons' generation doesn't know what it's like to live through that chaos, so they have a flippant attitude toward mob violence and destruction, and unleash another wave, which traumatizes their own sons' generation, ad infinitum.

    If the peaks are separated by 50 years, that's 25 years up and 25 down, about a human generation in each direction.

    Not the same as a social-cultural generation like Boomers, X-ers, etc., which are much shorter in length.

    But for the record, it was Millennials who carried out the violence and chaos from 2014-'20. Defined as '81-'82 at the start and '95-'96 at the end. Also the psychos responsible for online warfare like the ubiquitous cancel mobs on social media, especially Twitter (the Millennial platform).

    Gen X was too old to be out rioting then -- at best, showing up to the peaceful Women's March. And they never were rioters. They were in their 20s during the '90s, a low-point of rioting (only the '92 Rodney King riots, really).

    And Zoomers were too young. Perhaps a handful of the late '90s births were out there, but not many -- and none who were born in the 2000s. (No, putting a BLM fist on your TikTok profile is not rioting, burning, looting, etc.)

  3. Funniest example of the Millennial vs. Zoomer clash during the woke violence wave was the Kyle Rittenhouse affair. The unlikely hero himself is an uber-Zoomer, born in 2003, while all three rioters he shot (two of whom he killed) were Millennials -- approx. born in '84, '94, and '94.

    As the stink of 2014-'20 wokeness permanently attaches itself to the Millennials who caused it, that will be all the more reason for Zoomers to want to distance themselves from being a woketard psycho. For generational differentiation. "OK Millennial, it's not 2017 anymore, no one GAF about ______".

    Zoomers never did radicalize, and going forward, they may even signal how non-radical they are, lest they be mistaken for cringey Millennial activists stuck in the bad old days that everyone else wants to leave behind.

    Again, I don't mean they're all going to take a huge right turn. They're just not going to work themselves -- and others -- up into a rage about every little microaggression, politicizing everything, and burning down black urban neighborhoods just cuz they're angry.

    Zoomers, embrace tuning out from the weekly rage-bait treadmill ("news"), and not giving a fuck -- you just saw where society goes when young people care so hard it hurts.

    There could never be such civil unrest in the world of your cozy Minecraft streams -- let that be the example to aspire to. :)

  4. The next wave in the 60s/70s lines up well with Reilly's Spenglar's Future, with the final agony of modernity happening in the 60s to the 80s.

  5. Angela Nagle remarked how shocked she was at the ages of the Antifa scum who were arrested during the 2014-'20 woke wave, and had their ages recorded / published with mugshots. There were plenty in their mid-to-late 30s, along with the usual suspects in their mid-late 20s.

    The shared factor being their generation, as Millennials. Because it's actually rare for 20 and 30-somethings to be doing Antifa style mob violence -- Gen X didn't do it at the same age in the '90s or the 2000s. Hell, Boomers didn't do it in the '70s or '80s. Last time was the Silents, back in the mid-late '60s and early '70s.

    What's common between the Silents and the Millennials? Not much in terms of their social-cultural generational traits. But they were both born / raised during the minimum of civil unrest -- WWII and the '50s, and then the End of History Clinton / W. Bush era.

    That goes to Turchin's fathers-and-sons model. They were a full human generation away from the last explosion of collective violence (ca 1920 for Silents, ca 1970 for Millennials). So they had no appreciation for how bad it could get if they started pushing in that direction. So they did, and things blew up again.

    Now the backlash begins, just like it did over the course of the '70s, and new generations will move away from burning everything down... until there's a new group that is a full generation away from the 2020 explosion, doesn't know what will happen, and blows up society again when they're in their 20s and 30s, around 2070.

    But that's awhile ahead of us. Still, always remember it's a cycle, not a permanent victory for either side.

  6. No BLM-themed summer of rage 2.0 either, despite cops still shooting black guys, whether criminals who deserved it or innocents who did not.

    Media is trying to hype up just such a case today from Akron, OH (criminal). But no one cares. They're done caring. Done reacting. Done agitating. Done rioting.

    Just checked Wikipedia's article on BLM, and it says their support has plummeted off a cliff by May 2022, including among minorities. It's over for those hoes.

    Panglossians are always wrong, including here. It's so sad to see people attribute minmax / optimization / 1249066-D chess skills to their enemies. They want to be losers. Sadge.

    BLM / Dems / Etc. are not saving the riots for the general election year -- they were already blowing up in the 2014 mid-term year. And they were blowing up in 2015 and '17 when there were no national elections at all.

    Nor are they holding back in order to not embarrass their Democrat benefactors in charge of the White House -- see Occupy Wall Street, the Ferguson riots and the rest of the woke / BLM riots that blew up under Obama.

    No different from the last peak circa 1970. Chicago 1968 was Democrat rioters attacking a Democrat national convention, and the Democrat mayor ordering the Democrat-voting police to go crack their skulls. It was Democrats all the way down -- and total chaos, within a single party.

  7. The race motive for rioting has not faced as glaring of a test as the feminist one, i.e. the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

    The counterpart for race and ethnicity would be if they overturned Bakke / affirmative action, or Griggs / disparate impact.

    Not a single city would get burned down over it. There's no gas in the tank, for now. And it's in a refractory state, cannot be filled up for decades.

    It would be like abortion, in that the court wouldn't be nationally banning affirmative action or disparate impact policies. They would just say, you're free to apply them if you want, or not.

    Blue states aren't affected by overturning Roe, and liberal sectors would not have to change if Bakke or Griggs were overturned. Colleges, tech companies, etc. would continue using affirmative action.

    But red states now get to tighten abortion laws if they want, and if Bakke or Griggs were gone, other sectors would be free to hire who they wanted, without affirmative action / disparate impact considerations. Energy, agriculture, lots of small brick-and-mortar labor-intensive businesses that would love to drop the compliance costs.

    The military has gradually gotten rid of standards, and the goal of winning, so they could swing to the woke side and continue doing affirmative action / disparate impact.

    The whole point of affirmative action was to integrate the sub-groups of America into a whole. But now that the empire and the nation is fragmenting, fewer people will care about forcing a cohesion that is untenable.

    Plus the nature of the sub-groups these days is totally different from the '70s -- way more immigrants, of myriad origins. It's not just the African descendants of slaves, white founding stock, and white Ellis Islanders anymore.

    Different states will find their own replacements for affirmative action (or just leave it gone), depending on their own populations.

  8. No one will riot if they overturn Obergefell either. I only drove through downtown on one Saturday night during Gayness Month, and it was so weak. Not detectable elsewhere in the city either.

    Back in 2013 or so, every city was overrun with faggies and haggies during the weekend of the Pride March. Not anymore, not even close.

    It's over. People are tired. They can't even work up the energy to do the fun victory-lap protests during their official spotlight month -- let alone if they would have to burn shit down and get shot at by teams of cops.

  9. Vladimir Berkov7/4/22, 10:57 PM

    Do you think the current trend of mass shootings will just die away as the cycle continues into the 2020s?

    Thinking back to the previous similar point in the cycle to today (early 1970s) there were no mass shootings of note, but there was a rash of air hijackings and piracy. Like mass shootings it involves putting lives in grave danger for the pure attention seeking and narcissism more than some monetary or social award.

    Air hijackings basically died out by the late 1970s, continuing on with some terrorist bombings. The bombings I think had a different motive, were often anonymous or barely acknowledged, much more of an attempt at a further political goal for a nameless group than attention on a couple individuals. Even the hijackings of 9/11 while an aberrant event in a generally calm period, also weren't attention seeking. The hijackers/pilots names are unknown.

    If the mass shootings of today follow the air piracy trend, in the 2030s we'll have possibly still some lone misfits inspired by the glamorous well-known earlier shootists like at Columbine or Sandy Hook. But without the drive/reward or public notice, and with a cooled-down chill mood nationwide, why bother shooting a bunch of people for the news? Just cut yourself or shoot the one nemesis at the school then yourself. Still destructive but inward focused rather than outward.

  10. Mass shootings have been steadily rising since about 1980, when the neolib / status-striving / polarization began. Not a thing during the self-restrained, bipartisan, New Deal era.

    Turchin includes mass shootings or spree shootings in his analysis, too.

    Those could still go on the rise, because they don't require mass participation, like riots. A lone nut here, a lone nut there, all of a sudden you've got spree shootings several times a year, indefinitely.

    There may not be an activist / political veneer to them, like during the 2014-'20 period of politicized riots. But they'll probably continue. And in fact, we've seen several already this year, unlike rioting.

  11. The thing to look for now is serial killers, since the violent crime rate has been rising since 2020 (as I predicted 10+ years ago).

    That phenomenon is the intersection of two separate trends -- rising violent crime rates, which is why they fell off during the '90s, 2000s, and 2010s -- but also this neolib polarization trend.

    What defines a mass shooting, and serial killing, is the killer has no beef with the specific individuals he's targeting. They merely fit a profile, and he's targeting a category of people he is upset with.

    For example, going postal and shooting up your workplace, because that whole location has made you angry, and it doesn't matter whether this coworker or that manager is there on the day in question. You're just going to take out your anger on your workplace.

    Or school, because you're angry at the school, not specific students.

    This is a kind of group polarization, because the killer is separating everyone into Team A vs. Team B, and anyone on the wrong team is fair game.

    This has been rising during the '90s - 2010s, even as violent crime rates were falling.

    But serial killing is another form of targeting a group -- typically "women," or "sexual women" like prostitutes, or "women who remind me of my ex," etc.

    They don't all work / live in one place, so it's not like a school or workplace that he can shoot up in one event. It will be spread across a number of episodes, as he hunts and stalks around for awhile.

    This attitude of himself as a hunter, and other people as prey, seems to only show up in rising-crime times.

    As wacko as someone strikes us, who shoots up a single location, the type who hunts around over a range of territory and a period of time, is even more of a warped psycho.

    That's going to be the most disturbing new development during this rising-crime period. Young people today weren't even born when the most recent high-profile serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, was front-page news, in the early '90s.

  12. What worries me most is everyone, left and right, is still a race-reductionist about crime. They think "crime" is just a code-word for "non-white" -- only difference being the left wants to excuse crime by saying how oppressed the non-white group is, and the right wants to excuse whites by showing how less-violent they are.

    When my main work on the blog was about rising vs. falling crime, and outgoing vs. cocooning behavior, I labored in vain to get right-wingers to understand that crime went up everywhere during the '60s, '70s, and '80s -- not just minority-dominated cities. Suburbs, rural, all-white states, you name it.

    They went up around Europe as well, back when there were no non-white people in Europe.

    But no one wanted to hear it, aside from the odd reader. "Crime" was always "race and crime".

    Then again, that was during the early 2010s, as we were about to descend into the woke vortex, and left and right were getting more racialized in their thinking.

    Just because there's no rioting doesn't mean left + right won't still be largely racial in their thinking going forward. That's still the first reaction to a mass shooting -- what race was he?

    We're more polarized than 10 years ago, so the response to crime could get even worse. Right-wingers will brush it off as, "Meh, that's just blacks shooting blacks in Democrat cities, not my problem," as their kid gets abducted by a white serial killer from a playground in the suburbs of Salt Lake City. (True story: Arthur Gary Bishop, homo pedophile serial killer in Mormon-land.)

    And obviously left-wingers will be retarded, "We can't do anything to criminals cuz disparate impact against our most loyal voting bloc".

    Anyway, last I'll say about this morbid stuff for a little while. If you want to read in-depth posts, use the sidebar to browse from 2010-2012.

  13. Unlike the 1st coof in Apr 2020, this time I did lose my taste / smell to a large degree. I thought it would just be a blunted response, but qualitatively the same -- until I ate something with mustard on it.

    Jesus Christ, it tasted like pine needle paste, with an ashtray dumped into it.

    The only time I've had my taste buds scrambled was when I took an m-berry 10 years ago, making sour / bitter things taste sweet. Not bad!

    I could barely make out any notes when I put 3 sprays of Aramis on the other day. None of the citrus ones, no aldehydes, just a dull burning smoky whiff, and that was weak itself.

    Who ever heard of such symptoms in a common disease? No one, because this artificially engineered fucker was not organically evolved. Knocking out taste & smell costs the virus something, but gains it nothing. It's just something the American-funded Chinese outsource lab decided to throw into the mix, just for yuks.

    Better than the side-effects if you get jabbed, though.

    BTW, supposedly the current variant doesn't care if you got jabbed, boosted, or already got infected. Even less reason to get the jab, then (I never have, never will).

    Pretty sure this thing is spreading in supermarkets, as I hadn't visited any other public spaces leading up to showing symptoms. Same when I got it back in 2020 -- had only made a few big trips to the supermarket to stock up.

    High-traffic, and one of the few indoor spaces people still go to, even in an entirely-online world.

    If the elites wanted to end COVID, they would compel all supermarkets to implement airplane-level ventilation systems. But they don't care, never did care, whined about pointless masks & ineffective vaccines instead.

    Cleaning up a contaminated public resource of pathogenic impurities -- BORRRRINGGGG.

    Not that this thing is the Black Plague, but I'd rather not get it ever again, let alone every two years for the rest of my life.

  14. Vladimir Berkov7/6/22, 2:31 AM

    The polarization will be interesting if serial killing does make a return: the problem of most serial killers being middle class white and Jewish male homosexuals. My guess is much like monkeypox the trend will be hushed up until it’s too big to ignore.

  15. Have you ever heard of Front Porch Politics?


  16. Even Steven Sailer has recently noticed the correlation between "Happiness Explosions" and rising violence


  17. The rise of serial killers and other murderers as part of a cycle that has come. Gives a good reason for the utility of Capital Punishment.

    This will limit the victims they are able to target as they are killed off by Capital Punishment. And we know the dead has a 0% recidivism. This will blunt the murder wave.

    The more of them get stopped that way. The better. Its a good time to catch them and take them down.

  18. Is this cycle American or global.
    Was hoping for a war soon

  19. It's at least Western Europe and its off-shoots. America was not the only country that saw civil unrest during the late '60s and early '70s -- or the late 1910s and early '20s, and so on.

    War is external and unrelated -- we had a minimum of civil unrest during the 1940s, but waged extensive war in the Pacific theater during WWII. Also the Korean War shortly after.

    If you mean a world war, that won't happen. WWI was the result of a bunch of moribund empires all pressing against each other. Right now it's only the US and maybe Russia as empires, and we're not pressing against each other.

    Yes, a proxy war in Ukraine. But we're not going to do a Great War over that.

    More importantly, it's just 2 empires, not a lot of them all next to each other. World war requires multiple empires competing against each other for control of territory.

    It'll be more like the collapse of the Roman Empire, which had no imperial adversaries nearby -- Persia, but that was way off in the Middle East. And no multiple others.

    Continuing reminder that you can ignore anyone citing or alluding to Roman history to illuminate the present state of America, if they don't know that we're in the Crisis of the Third Century phase of their history. I.e., it's over for us hoes.

    Rome did not fall in the mid-400s, that was just sweeping up the leftovers. It never recovered from the breakdown of the 200s.

    Caesar, Sulla, Augustus, etc. -- all irrelevant to us now. That was their civil war phase during imperial expansion, where there was Team A vs. Team B. We already went through that phase -- the mid-1800s.

    Rome reached its peak in the 2nd century, after the civil wars. Then they began contracting in the 3rd, collapsed into anarchy, and never recovered.

    We reached our peak in the 20th century, after our civil war. We've already begun contracting, and are descending into anarchy more and more each year.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."