Culture is an evolutionary process that follows many of the same patterns as biological evolution. And all too often, the path to cultural extinction is also evolutionary.
In biology, an invasive species is defined as “a non-native organism that, when introduced to a new ecosystem, proliferates rapidly, disrupts local biodiversity, and causes ecological or economic harm by outcompeting or preying on native species.”
What’s left out of that definition, of course, is a reflection on why the native species is so easily displaced. Or, to put it another way, why is the invader so easily able to dislodge a native species from its natural habitat in the first place? And how can that vulnerability be plugged?
A case in point drawn from the animal kingdom is the American beaver, which is perfectly at home in its native North American habitat. But after they escaped from fur farms in Europe (or were intentionally released, like in Finland and Russia), they rapidly spread across Europe and began to displace the European beaver.
American beavers are more aggressive and adaptable, and thus they quickly dominated the prime riverine habitats and food sources. Compounding this is the fact that the American beaver has a higher reproductive rate. Furthermore, European and American beavers are genetically incompatible because they have different chromosome counts (40 in American beavers, 48 in European beavers) — this rules out any possibility of some kind of hybrid mix emerging from these two rival species.
Evolution is often a zero-sum game – when two incompatible species compete for the same territory, one must eventually lose and go extinct. Without some kind of outside intervention to remove the invasive species and re-introduce the native species, the European beaver is doomed to be displaced within a few generations. Unless, of course, it evolves some new trait to “adapt” to the invader’s presence to either beat it back or find some uneasy truce. At the moment, its inevitable demise is being forestalled by eliciting sympathy from humans. But if humans lose interest in protecting it, the European beaver is ultimately destined to join the Dodo, the Passenger Pigeon, and the Wild Auroch as historical anecdotes in the fossil record.
But this isn’t an article about beavers. Nor is it about ethnicity, the color of skin, or the genes flowing in our veins.
It is about the evolution culture – about the ideas in our heads and the society that emerges from those shared ideas – about what happens when rival cultures with incompatible philosophical and moral beliefs collide, and what makes some cultures especially vulnerable to ruination and extinction.
~ ~ ~
Before jumping ahead to our own era, I’d like to begin with a stark example from another time and place in which one culture effectively committed suicide by evolving seemingly beneficial moral traits that dramatically improved the lives of all its members — for a while — only to discover that these cultural adaptations left them utterly defenseless against a hostile rival that didn’t play by the same pacifist rules.
The first Polynesian ancestors of the Māori arrived in New Zealand sometime between 1320 and 1350 AD. In the early years, they were mostly focused on survival and adaptation to their new island home, rather than organized warfare.
But, in time, that changed.
Overhunting caused New Zealand’s large flightless moa birds to go extinct within the first 100 years of Māori settlement, thus depriving the Māori of one of their major food sources. By 1445, the moa was extinct.
With the moa gone, this significantly increased competition for fish, shellfish, and cultivatable land. Meanwhile, the Māori population continued to increase even as large-scale deforestation from agriculture and hunting continued to reduce available land. This, in turn, fueled a massive competition for land and resources between rival clans. This competition began to reshape the culture itself.
And so, a warlike culture began to emerge. Their culture began to emphasize traits like mana (prestige/authority), which could be gained through bravery in conflict, and utu (reciprocity or balance), which demanded retribution for wrongs. By the time European explorers, traders, and missionaries began regularly visiting the islands in the late 18th and early 19th century, inter-tribal warfare among the Māori was deeply entrenched in their culture, and Māori culture had even evolved ritualistic cannibalism practices in which defeated enemies were consumed in order to absorb their mana.
When European traders introduced muskets to the island in the early 1800s, intertribal conflict spiraled as rival tribes leveraged the killing power of the musket to full effect. This period is known as the Musket Wars (1806 – 1845), with as many as 3,000 battles and raids fought between rival Māori clans resulting in 20,000 to 40,000 deaths (in a population of only around 80,000), with rival tribes taking many tens of thousands of slaves as captives from these wars.
Then, in 1845, the initial wave of European traders was followed by a formal British effort to conquer New Zealand (known as the Land Wars or the Māori Wars). But with the Māori well versed in guerrilla warfare, ambushes, and hit-and-run tactics, the next three decades were no less violent than the last.
Early on, the British Empire suffered heavy casualties and almost lost to the Māori. By the 1860s, 4,000 Māori warriors were facing off against 18,000 British troops who were well supported by artillery, cavalry, and local militia. Yet even then, the British faced a difficult uphill struggle. The Māori were tough customers to conquer – their warlike culture may have made life pretty perilous for the average Māori trying to build a life for their family, but that warlike culture also ensured that nothing less than the full weight of the British Empire could conquer this tiny, sparsely populated island.
But not all ancestral Māori followed this cultural evolution towards a militant warrior culture.
Around 1500 AD (approximately 150 to 200 years after the first Polynesians arrived in New Zealand), a group of ancestral Māori from New Zealand crossed the open Pacific to reach the Chatham Islands, located about 800 km to the east of New Zealand. They became known as the Moriori. With a climate too cold for agriculture, theirs became a hunter-gatherer and fishing culture.
The first few generations on the Chatham Islands followed a similar cultural arc as the Māori back in New Zealand, with prolific intertribal warfare and bloodshed erupting between the three rival groups that dominated the Chatham Islands. But then, a prominent 16th century Moriori chief by the name of Nunuku-whenua established a new set of laws that essentially turned the Chatham Islands population into committed pacifists. Nunuku’s Law forbade both murder and the eating of human flesh. According to Wikipedia, he proclaimed: "Never again let there be war as there has been this day. Do not kill." And he secured the lasting peace with an accompanying curse: "May your bowels rot the day you disobey".
Cut off from the New Zealand mainland, Moriori culture was able to develop in isolation. And, for over 300 years, Nunuku’s peace remained intact. As long as all the rival groups on the Chatham Islands bought into this new pacifist turn in their culture, they were free to enjoy their new long peace without risk of ending up as the main course on someone else’s menu.
But obviously, despite the long peace reigning on the Chatham Islands, not everyone in the rest of the world shared those noble pacifist values. And eventually, the rest of the world caught up to the Chatham Islands. At that point, the bitter price for 300 years of pacifism had to be paid.
In 1835, two Māori tribes comprised of approximately 900 people (men, women, and children) that had been displaced by the Musket Wars back in New Zealand found their way to the Chatham Islands on European trading ships. These newcomers immediately began to walk about the Chatham Islands in a way that made it clear that they were laying claim to the land and intended to stay. The Moriori withdrew to debate about what to do about it but decided to maintain their long-entrenched policy of non-aggression.
And then the Māori attacked. A Moriori survivor reported that the Māori began slaughtering them like sheep, indiscriminately killing the fleeing Moriori wherever they could find them and hunting them down in the bush wherever they tried to hide. The few survivors were all, without exception, forced into slavery to the Māori.
In 1863, after the British won their own war against the Māori and gained full control over both New Zealand and the Chatham Islands, they forced the Māori to free their Moriori slaves, which they did reluctantly and only under great pressure from the British. By then, less than 10% of the Moriori population remained.
Testifying in a European-led court in the 1870s, a Māori chief commented: "We took possession ... in accordance with our custom, and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, these we killed; and others also we killed – but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom. I am not aware of any of our people being killed by them."
During 300 years of cultural isolation, the Chatham Islands’ culture of pacifism paid handsome dividends to maintain peace and prosperity at home – it’s nice to not have to live in fear of having your skull bashed in or to be sold off into slavery. And yet, in the end, that pacifism effectively led to cultural suicide as soon as that isolation was broken and the pacifist Chatham Islanders encountered an aggressive rival warrior culture that did not share those same pacifist principles and values.
Insulated from aggression for so many long centuries, when faced with an enemy that did not share their respect for human life and their commitment to peaceful negotiation, they simply could not step outside of their evolved moral code to do whatever was necessary to defend themselves against an enemy that did not view the world through the same moral lens.
~ ~ ~
Since the Second World War, Western society has effectively followed the Chatham Islanders down an accelerating path towards pacifism, appeasement, and cultural suicide. Professor of evolutionary psychology Gad Saad, in his upcoming book, coined the term — suicidal empathy — which perfectly describes how our enemies (both foreign and domestic) are exploiting the West’s culture of empathy, tolerance, and our habit of ‘self-criticism as a path to self-improvement’. By learning how to “hack” our moral code for their own self-serving benefit, our enemies are successfully dismantling all the core classical liberal principles of Western Civilization. And, trapped by our own morality, we are letting it happen.
Within the confines of our culture, all these traits were once our greatest strengths – they helped us create a more peaceful, fair, meritocratic, and compassionate society in which fewer and fewer people had to live in fear of starving on the streets or having their skulls bashed in while they sleep. But that only worked as long as all those within our borders shared those same baseline moral values… and understood their limits. Because morality stripped of nuance and context and stretched to its radical extremes isn’t morality at all. When moral values become moral absolutes, they cease to be useful guides with which to navigate a complex world and instead become chains by which our enemies can subvert us.
Peace, tolerance, and empathy at all costs is madness. An absolute moral code that is blind to evolving circumstances is a recipe for cultural suicide. If we allow ourselves to extend our moral code even to those who have no love for our culture and who seek to either parasitize our culture or overthrow it altogether, then we have only ourselves to blame for what happens next as we are colonized or conquered by our enemies, both domestic and foreign.
Those who do not share our cultural values are not deserving of our empathy, tolerance, or protection if we must compromise our culture to accommodate them, and their criticisms of our culture must not be given consideration. A culture will not survive for long if it loses its ability to draw a line around what is allowed inside versus what must be kept out. To maintain peace and liberty at home, a culture must be able and willing to confront its enemies, both physically and philosophically, and do so without reservation.
Who is to blame for the slaughter and enslavement that happened on the Chatham Islands? The Māori, operating within the framework of their culture that they brought with them to the Chatham Islands? Or the Moriori for refusing to adapt their moral code to expel a dangerous rival who did not share their culture and was unwilling to adopt their values upon landing on their shores. Graveyards are full of people who were “morally in the right to the bitter end” – perhaps that makes them better fertilizer for daisies, but it’s cultural suicide, nonetheless.
Our desire to behave as moral and good people within the evolving norms of our own culture, irrespective of context, has become our Achilles Heel. Tolerating the intolerant is not a virtue. Empathy for victimhood culture is neither honorable nor wise. Mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.* Weaponized self-criticism is not a path to self-improvement. Compassion for the tears of our enemies is a self-inflicted wound. Peace at all costs is a recipe for subjugation. A ceasefire regardless of terms is not a better alternative to war – without terms for a lasting peace, war is preferrable despite its bitter cost because violence committed in self-defence is not immoral.
Before I dive into the remainder of this essay — into the forces driving our culture to evolve crippling levels of tolerance, empathy, compassion, self-criticism, and pacifism — I want to thank all my paid subscribers for your support. It means the world to me!
If you are not already a paid subscriber, I’d like to ask for your support in the form of a paid subscription to my Substack. These kinds of essays require a colossal amount of time, effort, and research to produce. My freedom to explore ideas and think out-of-the-box comes from the fact that I am 100% reader-supported by people like you.
And if you’re not quite ready to sign up for a paid subscription, perhaps you’d consider leaving me a tip in the Tip Jar on my website to help support my writing.
An honorable warrior culture does not seek out war in any of its forms, but nor does it shrink away from it. Some wars, both literally and metaphorically, must be fought. Some things cannot be solved through compromise, empathy, and negotiation – society will know neither peace nor liberty without warriors who know how to walk that fine line. The will to exist, individually and as a culture, emerges from the willingness to engage in the battles that must be fought to secure a future for yourself, your children, and your culture.
Many well-meaning people simply cannot conceive that others, both at home and abroad, simply do not see the world through the same moral lens, do not share the same values and cultural ideals, and are willing to weaponize our moral code against us. They have trapped themselves within their own absolutist moral code. Held hostage by their own misplaced empathy, by the tears of their enemies, and by their own reductionist black-and-white thinking, they are unable defend themselves, their loved ones, or their culture because to do so would force them to think, say, or do “immoral” things. To them, it becomes easier to empathize with our enemies than to confront the flaws in their own absolutist moral code. Pacifism taken to its logical extreme, is merely a rationalization for cowardice.
With our culture reduced to absolute tolerance, fanatical empathy, and limitless self-criticism, our culture has become a malleable culture of nothing, with no line to differentiate between friend and foe. Instead, it is fracturing into a thousand warring internal factions as our enemies, domestic and foreign, plunder the carcass of our undefended culture.
And how do you assimilate newcomers without a clear and unapologetic sense of our own culture? Instead, our directionless host culture is increasingly adapting itself to cater to the cultural practices and sensitivities of the newcomers instead of the other way round. They do not apologize for their culture – why do we? And, most alarming of all is that those who try to defend themselves or their culture are increasingly viewed as morally reprehensible and condemned by their own pacifist peers, much to the delight of the barbarians within our walls or massing at our gates. In a pacifist culture, even confrontation, conflict, or violence exercised in self-defence becomes immoral – "May your bowels rot the day you disobey".
In short, we have evolved a slave’s morality. And there is no shortage of people lining up to become our new masters.
But why did our culture evolve crippling levels of tolerance, empathy, compassion, self-criticism, and pacifism, and thus lose its ability to defend and even to define itself?
~ ~ ~
What comes through from story about the parallel cultural evolution of the Māori and the Moriori peoples is that cultures evolve based on the context of each era and on the environmental and social pressures at work on those culture.
The “visionaries” who deliver new ideas that alter the course of a culture (for better or for worse), like Chief Nunuku, John Locke, Martin Luther, Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, Martin Luther King Jr., Rachel Carson, Michel Foucault, and so on, are actually less relevant to the story than the reasons why a society becomes receptive to these new ideas that dramatically alter the evolutionary course of their culture. The “visionary” merely articulates undercurrents already at work in society and provides a nucleus around which a new political movement can coalesce.
Māori warrior culture evolved out of the fierce competition for resources on an island with few and dwindling resources, and against a backdrop of a rapidly growing population. In this context, the evolution towards some kind of warrior culture was inevitable. Chief Nunuku’s Law would not have resonated in New Zealand because intergroup competition and the incentives for war were far too great.
By contrast, Moriori pacifism evolved in a population that was completely isolated from the rest of the world (thus at low risk from outside conquest) and in a very small population (never more than around 2,000 islanders). Pacifism requires a high-trust society. It can only ever be a long-term successful cultural adaptation if there is a strong familiar or cultural bond between people. Even the pacifist Hutterite colonies split their colonies in half every time their colonies grow beyond a certain size.
The harsh environmental conditions on the Chatham Islands likely kept that population small, which would have kept them from overwhelming the islands’ resources and thus kept intertribal competition for resources at a minimum. And, since the land was unsuitable for agriculture, the pressure to compete for land also did not exist – hunting and gathering food from the sea would have incentivized a collaborative existence as long as access to food was limited by hunting ability, not by scarcity.
Thus, Chief Nunuku essentially recognized that the warlike culture they had brought with them from New Zealand served no practical purpose within the context of life on the Chatham Islands and thus banished it. Until the Māori arrived, the evolved pacifism of the Moriori allowed them to live more fruitful lives by collaborating with one another rather than thumping each other over the head. But when their isolation was broken, they failed to adapt to the new circumstances. By failing to set aside their pacifism, even temporarily, and failing to pick up spears and clubs to defend themselves, they paid the ultimate price.
The only pacifist societies that have ever stood the test of time are small minority subcultures under the protection of a larger warrior host culture, like the Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, Hutterites, Doukhobors, among others. These pacifist subcultures within our larger Western culture exist by the grace of their benevolent protectors – if that protection is withdrawn, their way of life comes to an end, as has frequently happened in the past, which is why these cultures have relocated to North America and no longer exist on the Northern European plain where they originated — they migrated in search of a new host when the old host turned intolerant. In other words, because they lack a warrior culture of their own, their pacifism is a luxury afforded by the gracious protective umbrella that has been extended to them by their benevolent warrior host.
~ ~ ~
Every era creates its own incentives.
Classical liberalism, in the North American sense of that term of rugged individualism, meritocracy, liberty, and self-sufficiency, emerged from a largely self-sufficient society of homesteaders and independent craftsmen that had to fight to the death to protect themselves against both European and indigenous enemies. They wanted to be left alone and evolved a culture to reflect those values, even as they maintained a fierce warrior culture that was willing to put lives on the line to defend that liberty against all challengers. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and their peers merely codified a legal blueprint that spoke to an appetite already present in that society.
Likewise, the cultural drift into Marxism, socialism, and nanny statism in general, all emerged in response to an industrializing society and the vulnerability that people feel in the unequal power dynamic between large corporate employers and their laborers, which was frequently abused. The appetite for an increasingly assertive central authority emerged from the desire for an impartial referee or gatekeeper. Just as a self-sufficient society craves liberty, a vulnerable society craves a shepherd. As that central authority grew in power, the appetite for an even more powerful central gatekeeper also grew ever stronger as each side recognized both the vulnerabilities and opportunities of being able to tilt the scales by manipulating the sympathies of the gatekeepers. Human nature is both opportunistic and risk-averse – society’s trend towards ever bigger government reflects those dual impulses.
The cultural evolution of Western Civilization from warrior culture to modern pacifism was also in no small part driven by the industrialization of the military and the centralization of government authority, which left the civilian musket and local militias increasingly irrelevant in the grand scope of things as the responsibility for protecting the people against hostile invaders shifted first to conscription armies and then to large professional standing armies. The citizen-soldier became a thing of the past; the central planner emerged instead as the shepherd and protector of a pacified society.
These technological and political changes gradually reduced the warrior of yesteryear to a mere subculture within an otherwise increasingly peaceful culture. The cultural emphasis on personal martial prowess diminished. Dueling was gradually phased out. Pistols and sabers as personal accessories were replaced by the pocket watch. The depersonalization of combat (as fighting shifted from men with arms to mechanized weapons) also reduced the glory of individual fighting. Economic competition increasingly replaced violent conflict as a way of expressing our competitive nature. Honor culture was gradually replaced by “turn the other cheek”. Collaboration and negotiation rather than face-to-face confrontation became the norm of how our society functioned.
Likewise, urban expansion and urban industrialization, out of necessity, pushed society towards cultural norms that value negotiation and legal battles rather than violence – in a warrior culture, piling that many people on top of one another would lead to never-ending war. For better or for worse, the lawyer of today has replaced the knight of yesteryear and the courtroom has replaced the battlefield and jousting arena. All these societal changes gradually changed the incentives driving the evolution of our culture, thus pushing society towards a more peaceful, less aggressive, more collaborative, and more negotiated way of life.
But the biggest shift in incentives came in 1945.
In 1945, the United States emerged as the unchallenged superpower in the West. War continued out of sight out on the periphery, waged by our professional armies, but inside the protective umbrella of the American-led International World Order, peace reigned in the North American and European heartlands. This unprecedented historical period of relative global stability after World War II is known as the Long Peace.*
And that long peace incentivized the most rapid shift of all towards pacifism in Western culture.
For the first time in history, the collective West faced no immediate invaders on the horizon who were eager to murder them, rape their women, and enslave their children. A culture of pacifism is a luxury that evolves out of an absence of nearby enemies.
While the US military continued to serve as a deterrent to the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union, beyond that, for the average citizen, the earlier confrontational warrior culture no longer served any obvious immediate purpose in their lives. If anything, the military-industrial complex came to be viewed less as a guarantor of peace and more as a racket by which to unlock new opportunities for Wall Street.
From Vancouver to New York to London and Berlin, the average family slept in peace without knowing the fear that haunted our ancestors as they put their children to bed at night. And so, that Long Peace encouraged a rapid cultural evolution away from our earlier warrior culture and towards a neo-liberal culture of tolerance, empathy, and pacifism.
When there are no obvious barbarians massing on your doorstep, it’s easy to forget the dark complexities of human nature and the sacrifices that must be made to keep it at bay. Like the Amish and Hutterites subcultures in our midst, broader society afforded itself the luxury of pacifism because, under the uncontested post-WWII American security umbrella, it convinced itself that history had been overcome. The war to end all wars had been fought and won, and now all that remained was a grand social re-engineering initiative to secure a lasting peace.
As this cultural shift gained momentum, tolerance, empathy, collaboration, and pacifism emerged as society’s new highest values and grew to become absolutes as they were stripped of nuance and limits and as we blinded ourselves with our good intentions. If a little empathy is good, more is even better, right?
If your life and culture are never threatened, it’s easy to convince yourself that all problems can be solved through negotiation, compromise, and virtuous objectives. If your life is never in danger, it’s easy to turn your nose up at warrior cultures and the unflinching hardness that they must cultivate in order to overcome ruthless enemies. It’s easy to have empathy for everyone if you pay no immediate and obvious price for extending that empathy beyond its logical limits. All rats are cute until they eat your grain, leave their droppings on your kitchen counter, and bring plague into your community. The Long Peace made us naïve, squeamish, idealistic, righteous, and intellectually lazy.
As the pendulum swung to the extreme, society launched cultural crusades to try to stamp out all the remnant cultural practices and belief systems of that earlier warrior culture. It effectively became a self-reinforcing cultural revolution because Western society lived in a security bubble that gave it the luxury to entertain such “inclusive” and “empathetic” thoughts. We sought to disarm our law-abiding citizens. “Toxic masculinity” was suppressed. Language had to be reformatted to become less confrontational. Every culture, identity, and belief system were elevated to be considered equally valid. Feelings took precedence over hard facts. And then even history began to be rewritten through the lens of this newly emergent moral code.
Every problem, no matter how severe, could be solved through negotiations or by simply ignoring the problems. All forms of confrontation and conflict were to be banished in favor of “collaboration” and “negotiation” and “good intentions”. Participation trophies emerged in our schools. Central planning became the perceived path to maintain peace and prosperity for all, while war and zero-sum competition, including in evidence-based scientific debates (!), were all rebranded as barbarian impulses in all their forms. Consensus rather than evidence became the artibor of truth. Peace prevailed, even as our movies and video games became more violent, gory, and barbaric — in essence, our confrontational and violent human nature was effectively being banished to the imaginary realm, while we all gritted our teeth together and held hands in the real world.
As the peaceful West reaped the fruits of this new Long Peace, the true believers of this new moral code all deluded themselves that these utopian cultural values would, in time, spread to the rest of the world. The nationalists would eventually come round and want to join the international community. The communists would all be converted by free-market prosperity. The criminals would all forsake their life of crime as soon as they had reliable food on their table. Free trade would eventually bring democracy to China. Militant Islam would be tamed by exposure to our “civilizing” influence. And eventually, we’d all become one harmonious global family as Western values would be adopted by everyone.
We deluded ourselves into thinking that the entire world is populated by people who, when freed of the burden of their own historical cultural shackles, would share those peace-loving liberal values, set aside their hate, greed, and self-serving ambitions to take their place within a large collaborative international community, and all become Westernized. And for a brief moment in time, it really did look that way. Blue jeans and pop music took the world by storm. Liberal values would surely follow. But they didn’t.
It was all an illusion. We couldn’t even see that right here at home, by filing the fangs off our own culture, by subduing the warriors’ hearts beating in our chests, and by creating a gigantic nanny state, we were incentivizing domestic enemies within our own midst to begin to weaponize our own culture against us. By apologizing for our culture, we opened the door to its destruction — communism, socialism, victimhood culture, the welfare parasites, and unrestrained corruption in all its forms were all shielded from the consequences that an unapologetic warrior culture would have imposed in the past on those who engage in this kind of thinking.
Ironically, despite surrounding itself in the language of tolerance, empathy, and pacifism, wokeism is actually a newly emergent warrior culture, not unlike the rise of the Māori warrior culture, except that it is fought with words, courts, and public shaming, rather than weapons. It is ultimately the resurgence of tribalism as society fractures into competing factions, all scrambling to gain preferential access to resources, power, and privilege in a centrally planned world. Far from banishing history, we have simply re-created a new ecosystem for history to repeat. And it relies on you to submit, like a Moriori, because you have bought into a policy of non-aggression that prevents you from doing the morally unthinkable thing of confronting, challenging, or fighting back to defend your culture and way of life. Without pushback, there is nothing to stop this destructive new turn in our cultural evolution.
Meanwhile, outside of our borders, our enemies perceived our tolerance, empathy, and pacifism as weaknesses and began to take notice. A defenseless beast attracts all manner of pests, parasites, and predators.
The vultures are circling above Western Civilization. But who is to blame?
It’s time to look in the mirror. If we are waiting to convince our enemies to adopt our values in order to be “safe”, our culture will not be long for this world. It’s time to shake off the moral rot with which we have infected ourselves during our sheltered decadence. If our culture is to survive, turning the other cheek is no longer a luxury we can afford. If we value the peace, liberty, and individual opportunity offered by Western culture, we need to be willing to fight for it.
The Long Peace is over. It’s time for our culture to adapt… or die.
Julius’ Law: May your bowels rot if you blind yourself with shallow absolutes and fail to adapt."
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this Deep Dive, please share it widely to help me grow my audience!
See you in the next one!
