Imagine that tens of millions of people from the John Wayne generation were present and active in today’s America. How would they look at the gender extremists? At Gay Pride and Man-Boy-love organisations? Who would they support in politics?
Why is the social atmosphere of the Visegrad countries (Czech, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary) so dramatically different from that of the declining Western Europe? This is a question that we come across in many discussions and different situations.
Even if it’s not asked explicitly, we can feel the sense the surprise. Members of the Western elite simply cannot understand why people in the East simply refuse to follow the Western example in areas such as immigration, multiculturalism, gender, anti-white racism, etc. As one young gender activit explained it: “Czechs are racists, xenophobes, homophobes, sexists, violent fanatics, nationalists… sometimes I have the feeling that even Texas is a more tolerant country,“. The same applies to the former East Germany.
“Czechs are racists, xenophobes, homophobes, sexists, violent fanatics, nationalists… sometimes I have the feeling that even Texas is a more tolerant country,“.
The explanation that prevails in mainstream media is that a significant proportion of these countries’ population is basically defective. People here cannot understand the benefits of progressive ideologies. They don’t care about global warming. They don’t care for the cultural enrichment of mass migration. They fail to differentiate between the 38 genders. They are not ready to dismiss values such as family, nation, work. To sum up, they are immature.
This explanation meshes with the theories of Vaclav Havel and his fellow-travelers. At the beginning of the 90’s, they formulated the idea that people who experienced the “old regime“are simply too damaged. Positive change will need to wait for the next generation which did not experience this trauma
In the meantime, the allegedly inferior generation created a small economic miracle. Do you remember that these states were called the “economic tigers” before their economies were taken over by foreign investors? Thousand and thousands of successful companies were founded. They implemented and paid for radical improvements in the environment. They rebuilt highways and other infrastructure, renovated historic cities and castles while simultaneously paying back a large portion of loans inherited from the previous regime. Without no foreign aid. With hardly any foreign investment.
They rebuilt highways and other infrastructure, renovated historic cities and castles while simultaneously paying back a large portion of loans inherited from the previous regime. Without no foreign aid. With hardly any foreign investment.
Nevertheless, the myth of the allegedly defective generation has survived. It crumbles away only now, when many people in Western European countries admire the wisdom of Central European countries in their dealing with the migration disaster and with political correctness. We hear this admiration in personal discussions and on social networks, and it is increasing. Even some very successful people acknowledge in their private conversations, that they are considering moving out of Western Europe. The hypothesis of brains damage due to the “old regime” can therefore be crossed out.
A better explanation says that people who have experienced dictatorship and censorship are more nervous when seeing imposing limits on freedom. They can recognise a totalitarian way of ruling much faster than naïve Western Europeans. However, this theory explains only part of reality, from the following reasons.
First, only limited groups of people living under communism were frustrated by the inaccessibility of books by Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek. They did not feel any need to discuss such ideas. Many more people willingly accepted the Marxist theory of surplus-value, because it was irrelevant to them. They organised their lives on their own, mostly with significant participation in the shadow economy. If they wanted, they were able to obtain the albums of “imperialist” rock bands like Pink Floyd or the Rolling Stones. The general feeling of discontent with the communist regime was driven mostly by relatively low living standards (in comparison with Western Germany), deficiency of attractive consumer goods and the absurd bureaucracy (sometimes even as absurd as the bureaucracy of the current European Union).
The general feeling of discontent with the communist regime was driven mostly by relatively low living standards (in comparison with Western Germany), deficiency of attractive consumer goods…
Moreover, the defective Easterner theory does not explain why people in Western Europe accepted their new lack of freedoms so easily. The brutal suppression of demonstrations in Spain and France. The intimidation of people who criticise governments on social networks, including search warrants, heavy fines, assaults by Antifa commandos, firing from jobs, getting kicked out of state-owned apartments, all the way up to cases such as that of Kevin Crehan, who was put on trial for offending Islam. He was sentenced to a prison controlled by an Islamic gang, left without protection, and his strange death has never been investigated. The omnipresent fear to speak openly confirms that most Western Europeans understand their situation.
It is not a beginning of a totalitarian system. It is a mature totalitarian system, harder than last years of communism. You can object that most of the Western European population have never met these totalitarian practices personally. But it was the case also for late communism. I have never me a secret police member personally—neither my friends.
Moreover, there is the entire segment of multinational corporations to consider. Their employees experience exactly the same things as Eastern Europeans in 70’s and 80’s. Mandatory participation in sensitivity training and other absurd rituals, recitation of corporate values, counterfeit expression of enthusiasm, agitprop boards, the learned ability to hide true personal views. The formation of “human rights” groups to inform on politically incorrect colleagues. “Komsomol” (communits youth activists)-type characters are content, the majority is fatalistic, and only exceptional persons resist. People get used, just as Czechs and Slovaks in 70’s got used. There are still cases of sending a politically incorrect memo or drawing a funny nose onto a character in a multicultural poster, but these are rare.
There is the entire segment of multinational corporations to consider. Their employees experience exactly the same things as Eastern Europeans in 70’s and 80’s.
Prior experience with lack of freedom is thus not the full explanation. I suggest another theory. It is based on the generally accepted finding that if people know what personality traits lead to success, they try to adapt and develop those traits. Those who do not comply are forced out onto the edge of society. In each social strata, different traits are rewarded. There is no surprise that different traits are critical for success in the arts than in a bureaucracy, for example.
As soon as there is a stable social structure, a system of upbringing, education and selection of people forms for particular social groups. As an aside, this is a root cause, often underestimated, of the current chaos in the education system. Parents simply don’t know what world they are preparing their children for. It seems that traditional values such as responsibility, self-reliance and honesty don’t bring success. But what brings success in the new world? It’s not clear. An uncertain feeling prevails that it is a combination of (racial) origin, deviousness and conformity. However, it is too uncertain to lead to a new way of upbringing.
Although each country has its specifics, the basic patterns of social structures and personality traits are the same across Western civilisation. Let us start in the USA, where we can see these patterns most clearly.
The USA’s fifties are more that just Marilyn Monroe and classic American cars. First of all, it is an economy based on relatively small companies, farms and trades shops. The economy is not too regulated because the social groups that produce and conduct business are more powerful than the bureaucracy and intelligentsia. Corporations dominate some industries, but most Americans don’t work for them. Optimism, faith in free enterprise and Western values in general prevail. The traditional family has no real alternative. People still remember the heroism and sacrifice of the war. Trust in government and in the American political system is relatively high, . Even most intellectuals in the universities are friendly toward America and its values.
It seems that traditional values such as responsibility, self-reliance and honesty don’t bring success. But what brings success in the new world?
Young people were being prepared for starting and providing for families. Upbringing and education included values and skills necessary for success in the job market, with many opportunities for tradesmen,artisans as well as in the services. The white-collar class was small in comparison with today. There were almost no professional political activists. The archetypal character of sheriff (as played by John Wayne) was taken seriously as a moral example.
Of course, some professional intellectuals and spoiled gold-plated youth laughed at such ideas and lifestyles. But their voice was not very loud in the public sphere.
Let us move to American at the beginning of the 21st century. Rent-seeking has replaced entrepreneurship as the primary source of wealth. Manual workers are called “white trash”. The public space is dominated by large NGOs and corporate media. Extremist groups rule over universities. Topics such as “elimination of whiteness” are accepted in the mainstream.
You need completely different traits to succees in such a society. Success is based on conformity, the will to submit to political correctness and an inability to challenge prevailing dogmas. A young person is expected to take part in “rebellion” ordered and organised by the elites. Creativity is focused primarily on solving non-existent problems.
Rent-seeking has replaced entrepreneurship as the primary source of wealth. Manual workers are called “white trash”.
Such a world needs different personality traits and a different kind of education. There are significant differences between Americans of the fifties and Americans of today. The process of a profound change in the school system, public administration, education, upbringing, values and personality traits took about 60 years.
You can still meet “old school” people, but they are relegated to the lower classes. “Historical biases” such as self-reliance and hard work can be still found among the working class.
This process of a profound change of school systems, public administration, education, upbringing, values and personal features took about 60 years.
We can identify a similar change in Central European countries. The power shift happened at some time between 1995 and 2015. It took no more than 20 years, and perhaps less. This compressed schedule results in a world where politically correct people in their thirties and old schoolers in their fifties are mixed together.
Imagine that tens of millions of people from the John Wayne generation were present and active in today’s America. How would they look at the gender extremists? At Gay Pride and Man-Boy-love organisations? Who would they support in politics?
“Historical biases” such as self-reliance and hard work can be still found among the working class.
Of course, we are just discussing statistical trends. Some people in their fifties would join the progressivist movement. Some young people are conservative. But the essential trend is irrefutable.
Rapid improvement in environmental quality and health care in 90’s contributed to this trend, as prolonged life expectancy shifted life’s “seasons”. Today people in their thirties are similar to teenagers of former eras, in terms of mentality, lifestyle and the requirement they face. The role of people currently in their fifties is similar to former thirty years old. Their mentors, who used to be about 50, are now more typically aged 70 and can expect at least another ten years of active life.
The difference is not only in values and politics. Old-schoolpeople were trained to not whine and lived in a tougher environment, in some aspects. Among them, the value of self-reliance is more common. Many of them hate state subsidies. Their brains are better at comprehensive problem-solving because they grew up without computers. The list of differences is long. It is not because they are better people but rather because they were shaped by a different environment. But the political result is that small groups of amateurs can compete against big organisations, big money and big media. Even massive propaganda did not succeed in its attempt to create a migration-friendly atmosphere in the Czech Republic and other countries of the region.
The new elites hope that they can simply wait until the older generations die out. Not so fast.
The differences between Central European and Western societies go further. Young people grow up in an environment more diverse in terms of ideas. They see people who are not afraid of speaking openly. Dissent against political correctness is much easier in Central Europe. The differences are not only in politics. It influences everyday life. A young person who starts his/her first job with a local Czech company has a boss who would never consider firing someone for sexist or racist remarks (as would happen in the local office of a global corporation). Even for small reasons such as this, Czech millenials are a much more ideologically diverse group than their peers in the Western EU countries.
A very complicated dynamics results from this situation. Class conflict is mixed with generation conflict, with the conflict between big cities and the countryside, with competition between local and global organisations. Nobody can predict the future development of this dynamic. Nobody can estimate how Central-European societies will react to external forces.
It was naïve to expect that the millions of dollars pumped in by NGOs are sufficient to gain complete control over a foreign nation. Violent nationalism grew up in Ukraine, radical Islam in the Near East and a new type of generation conflict in Central Europe. It is not possible to govern such different nations using a single approach.
The new elites hope that they can simply wait until the older generations die out. Not so fast. Before today’s 50-year-olds leave the stage, the game will change completely. Other players will be dealing with other issues.