Around the 31 minute mark, Mr. Haywood talks about the tie between monarchy and aristocracy being that someone (monarch) needed to be above and manage the land granting. While it could be argued that the American founding fathers were aristocrats of a sort, including their being major land-owners, maybe one reason for the lack of an American aristocracy similar to European aristocracy, is there was no shortage of land that needed to be managed in such a way.
As far as I know there is no historical analogy from Western history that maps on to our current time, but the period leading up to warlord China is somewhat approximate. Trained competent professional young men found their imperial degrees invalidated with the end of the old monarchy, corruption radically increased, old ideas regarding China's place in the world and the validity of their cultural practices all changed. Chinese intellectual classes regarded themselves, their traditions and their people as inferior to the West. A big change from their former arrogance. Young men still went to university, even with uncertain prospects for jobs. I recommend reading up on the period ~1900-1928 if you find other topics (e.g Rome analogies) getting repetitive or not fitting
Around the 31 minute mark, Mr. Haywood talks about the tie between monarchy and aristocracy being that someone (monarch) needed to be above and manage the land granting. While it could be argued that the American founding fathers were aristocrats of a sort, including their being major land-owners, maybe one reason for the lack of an American aristocracy similar to European aristocracy, is there was no shortage of land that needed to be managed in such a way.
Interesting point, I hadn’t thought of that
Hello there friend, I see your posts often in my feed, and I must say I do enjoy what you share.
I thought I’d introduce myself with one of my latest works, you may enjoy it:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jordannuttall/p/tartaria-in-the-18th-century?r=4f55i2&utm_medium=ios
As far as I know there is no historical analogy from Western history that maps on to our current time, but the period leading up to warlord China is somewhat approximate. Trained competent professional young men found their imperial degrees invalidated with the end of the old monarchy, corruption radically increased, old ideas regarding China's place in the world and the validity of their cultural practices all changed. Chinese intellectual classes regarded themselves, their traditions and their people as inferior to the West. A big change from their former arrogance. Young men still went to university, even with uncertain prospects for jobs. I recommend reading up on the period ~1900-1928 if you find other topics (e.g Rome analogies) getting repetitive or not fitting
The most on point part was Charles saying that [young] men are finding themselves in a holding position, waiting for an opportunity.
The concern is that opportunities aren't going to show up. Good jobs. Good women.
And we all know that this can only result in forcibly creating opportunities. And how that goes depends on how many men are desperate.