From a Sigma Game substack post. What explains the lack of leaders in Western civilization? Four reasons, annotated with comments by me.
Feminism and the rise of credentialism. The transformation of the university demographic has been astonishing. From negligible numbers in 1960s to nearly two-thirds majority in the 2020s, women have taken over higher education and eliminated its function. Being completely converged, it no longer serves its purpose of educating society’s future leaders and preparing them for their responsibilities, it’s now just a credential mill for midwits and worse to be provided make-work jobs and serve as a faux elite that will do whatever it is told.
To be fair, plenty of men have recognized the fake and gay nature of university educations over time, and skilled trades are growing again. But much damage was done in the meantime. And skilled tradesmen may be doing fine on their own, but they're not getting into leadership positions anytime soon.
Diversity and social atomism. The more diverse the society, the more people stay at home and avoid socializing. The black block party, the white suburban barbeque, the men’s club, the Junior League, all these ad hoc organizations are largely a thing of the past due to the demographic changes combined with the legal elevation of equality and the demise of the right to free association. A potential leader can’t lead a nonexistent organization to which he doesn’t belong. Even the organized churches are dying.
I don't know that there's anything more to say on that, or not. Even in my church, which is not dying and which does generate local leaders because of our lay volunteer clergy for all but the highest levels of the church, we're not doing all of the things that we used to when I was a kid, and many of those things I used to do were things that were done for generations. Of course, churches are more susceptible to the side effects of diversity. The Gospel is for everyone, regardless of their state, their race, their culture, or even their legal status. It's not the Church's place to turn people away, even if those people should be remigrated back to their homes where they can participate in Church meetings there instead of here. But that's the state's job. The Church's job is to bring the Gospel to them regardless.
Of course, that doesn't mean that people in the church shouldn't remigrate if they don't belong here legally, or if they came under dubious auspices, or that people in the church can't work with ICE and whomever else to make sure that people who don't belong are sent back home. But I do understand why people are conflicted about the question, even if I am not, and I do understand that churches have to accept a higher level of diversity, perhaps, than other organizations do. Everywhere that I've lived, there's been at least one Spanish speaking congregation for every 10-12 regular English speaking ones. As long as the people are here, they need that kind of ministering. Whether or not they should be here isn't a question that relates to whether or not the church should minister to them while they are.
But, of course, the diversity contributes to lack of social cohesion and and increase in atomism. It just is what it is, as the post says.
The GATE/Epstein/gangstalker phenomenon. Young men of potential are identified early and then either sidetracked, controlled, or eliminated before they can rise along the probable trajectory of their lives. This probably goes too far into the conspiracy zone for most people, but it’s not a coincidence that the sort of self-righteous losers who attend Mock UN and student-leadership conferences are actually being put in charge of major corporations, resource-rich NGOs, and other organizations they manifestly have no business running. No wonder nothing works anymore.
It does go too far into the conspiracy zone for me. I don't disbelieve that at least some of this exists, but that people are literally running around "beaming" people just so that they have headaches and can't function well in regular normal roles is a bridge too far. I don't believe that's happening. Of course, that doesn't mean that there isn't some of this applied to people who do reach a certain level. It's no secret even to non-conspiracy-like people that Epstein and blackmail have been used to control many of our politicians, and there's even the slightly conspiracy zone idea, but one that's quite believable, that you can't even rise to a certain level very easily without allowing yourself to engage in blackmailable activities, because you're literally shut out of them until you do.
It doesn't need to be quite the crazy Anonymous Conservative level of "American Stasi" and beaming and testing of smart little kids to still be effective at the top levels of corporations, NGOs, and politics at a much more low-key yet still substantial level of activity.
The technological distraction. Between video games, weed, and pornography, young men simply don’t have the burning desire to succeed that they once did. Mediocrity is much more pleasant now, and much more personally satisfying, than it ever used to be. Why bother working hard to buy a nice car when you can drive a better one for free in a racing game any time you want? Pleasure on-demand is inevitably demotivational and debilitating.
This is undeniable. And it needs not have anything said about it, I don't think. Especially when the most successful way to rise above that kind of mediocrity is not to achieve better, but to sell out to the powers that be.
Sigh. Trump's more or less (so far) success at draining the swamp could be a sea change, but it will take time, the swamp is weakened but not gone, and the damage of generations of this—starting with the Boomers on down—will take more generations to completely undo, I'm sure.
