Sophia or Clio?

No sooner did I start attending church again than a schism occurred. I can't take the credit for this. I can view it as a historical dynamic, however. The UMC is itself an offshoot of the Anglican church, as was Puritanism. These two denominations are diametrically opposed. Sometimes the spirit that moves congregations is Clio, not Sophia. The Puritans were Grim Pills with fascist tendencies; the Methodists eventually started the anti-slavery movement in England, which also put them at odds with the Cavaliers who had transplanted this peculiar institution to North America. My first acquaintance with cliodynamics was when I read a critique of this discipline when it asserted that slavery made economic sense.

The discipline of cliodynamics was proposed by Peter Turchin in 2003. Cliodynamics is a transdisciplinary area of research that integrates cultural evolution, economic history, macrosociology, the mathematical modeling of historical processes, and the construction and analysis of historical databases. 

The aim of cliodynamics is to treat history as a science. Its practitioners develop theories that explain dynamical processes such as the rise and fall of empires, population booms and busts, and the spread and disappearance of religions. These theories are translated into mathematical models, and the model predictions are tested against data.

The term "cliodynamics" originates from Clio, the muse of history in Greek mythology, and dynamics, which broadly refers to the study of how and why phenomena change with time. The approach of cliodynamics does not preclude the inclusion of human agency in its explanatory theories. It can be traced to the work of figures such as Ibn Khaldun, Alexandre Deulofeu, Jack Goldstone, Sergey Kapitsa, Randall Collins, John Komlos, and Andrey Korotayev.

The goal of cliodynamics is to transform history into a science by using the standard scientific method that has worked well in physics, biology, and many social sciences. This involves constructing theories based on general principles and testing them empirically with comprehensive databases. In this way, cliodynamics seeks to map and predict the dynamical processes of history.

The Cavaliers, who were supporters of King Charles I during the English Civil War, preferred a "high" form of Anglican worship, similar to that of the Catholic church. King Charles I and many of his Cavalier followers were known for their preference for this form of worship. Additionally, King Charles I's wife, Henrietta Maria, was a Catholic. These factors often led to suspicion from the Roundheads, who tended to be of a more Puritan religious outlook.

The Puritans were members of a religious reform movement that arose within the Church of England in the late 16th century. They believed the Church of England was too similar to the Roman Catholic Church and should eliminate ceremonies and practices not rooted in the Bible. 

The disagreement between Anglicans and Puritans became increasingly political in the 17th century, with the monarchy fighting to keep control through the state-run Church of England, and the Puritans, represented more and more in Parliament, pushing back. This eventually led to the English Civil War (1642–1651), the brief rule of the Puritan Lord Protector of England Oliver Cromwell (1653–1658), the English Commonwealth (1649–1660), and as a result the political, religious, and civil liberty that is celebrated today in all English-speaking countries.

Almost all Puritan clergy left the Church of England after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 and the 1662 Uniformity Act. During the reign of James I, most Puritans were no longer willing to wait for further church reforms and separated from the Church of England.

The term "Cavaliers" and "trading monopolists" refer to different groups of people from different historical contexts.

The term "Cavaliers" was first used as a term of abuse for the wealthier royalist supporters of King Charles I and his son Charles II of England during the English Civil War, the Interregnum, and the Restoration (1642 – c. 1679). It was later adopted by the Royalists themselves.

On the other hand, "trading monopolists" refers to individuals or companies who have exclusive control over a commodity, market, or means of production. The first modern monopolies were created by various monarchies in Europe, with charters written by feudal lords granting land holdings and the accompanying revenues to loyal subjects. In colonial America, large companies were granted exclusive contracts by the colonial governors to carry out large-scale public works.

So, while both Cavaliers and trading monopolists were influential in their respective periods, they are not the same. The Cavaliers were primarily political and military supporters of the monarchy in England, while trading monopolists were individuals or entities that controlled significant portions of economic markets.

Mercantile monopoly, or more broadly, the economic theory of mercantilism, played a significant role in the American Revolution. 

Mercantilism was an economic theory followed by England that led to the implementation of policies contributing to unrest in the American Colonies. This system focused on creating wealth through trade, and to maintain a positive trade balance, it implemented government regulations — restrictions — that protected its interests. 

These policies included the Navigation Acts, which regulated commerce between the British Isles and its overseas provinces. The Acts aimed to make England self-sufficient by obtaining raw materials from its colonies rather than foreign competitors, increase England's stock of bullion (a measure of a country's power) by exporting more than it imported, and strengthen the English merchant navy by maintaining a trade and manufacturing monopoly with its colonies.

During Great Britain's mercantilist period, colonies faced periods of inflation and excessive taxation, which caused great distress. The colonists were particularly upset about the monopoly granted to the East India Company. These factors led to increasing frustration among the American colonists, eventually culminating in the American Revolution.

However, it's important to note that while mercantilism and the resulting economic policies were significant factors, they were not the sole causes of the American Revolution. The Revolution was the result of a complex mix of factors, including political, social, and ideological conflicts. So, while mercantile monopoly was a major contributing factor, it was part of a larger context of colonial discontent.

The Methodists, led by John Wesley, began as a reform movement within the Church of England in the 18th century. Wesley did not initially intend to create a new denomination but sought to reform the Church of England through a renewed focus on spiritual disciplines. However, tension arose due to his reformation efforts, and he was eventually banned from preaching in Anglican churches.

In 1784, Wesley gave legal status to his Conference, which moved towards the legal separation of Methodism from the Anglican Church. He also ordained ministers for America, where there was a drastic shortage of clergy to administer the sacraments following the War of Independence. 

The formal separation of Methodists from the Church of England was marked in 1795 when Methodist leaders issued the Plan of Pacification, which allowed their clergy to administer the sacraments to their own members. This was a decisive break with the Church of England.

The First Great Awakening, also known as the Evangelical Revival, was a series of Christian revivals that swept Britain and its thirteen North American colonies. It began in the 1730s and lasted until about 1740. However, pockets of revivalism had occurred in years prior, especially amongst the ministry of Solomon Stoddard, Jonathan Edwards' grandfather. Although the most significant years were from 1740-1742, the revival continued until the 1760s.

Episcopalians, who were known as Anglicans before the American Revolution, were part of the First Great Awakening. The foremost evangelical of the Great Awakening was an Anglican minister named George Whitefield. He was itinerant, traveling the countryside instead of having his own church and congregation. Between 1739 and 1740, he electrified colonial listeners with his brilliant oratory.

The First Great Awakening marked the emergence of Anglo-American evangelicalism as a trans-denominational movement within the Protestant churches. Building on the foundations of older traditions — Puritanism, Pietism, and Presbyterianism — major leaders of the revival such as George Whitefield, John Wesley, and Jonathan Edwards articulated a theology of revival and salvation that transcended denominational boundaries and helped forge a common evangelical identity.

However, it's important to note that the revival also led to division in existing churches between those who supported the revivals and those who did not. In England, evangelical Anglicans would grow into an important constituency within the Church of England, and Methodism would develop out of the ministries of Whitefield and Wesley. In the American colonies, the Awakening caused the Congregational and Presbyterian churches to split, while strengthening both the Methodist and Baptist denominations. It had little immediate impact on most Lutherans, Quakers, and non-Protestants, but later gave rise to a schism among Quakers that persists to this day.

The Quakers played a significant role in the Industrial Revolution, especially in England and Pennsylvania. Quaker schools provided their young men and women with superb educations, unmatched anywhere at the time. Those who chose business as a career could often count on the financial backing of a Quaker bank, family, or friends to turn ideas into reality.

Quakers sought enterprises that were non-military and also useful. They pioneered the mass production of iron, and there were mining and metal production concerns, all central to the early Industrial Revolution. The Quakers and their Nonconformist brethren, who at one stage comprised nearly 50% of the entrepreneurs in the country, repeated the astonishing success of the Coalbrookdale enterprise all over England in other industries such as banking, chemicals, china, food, and steel.

However, it's important to note that the Industrial Revolution was a complex process that involved many different groups and innovations. While the Quakers were influential, they were part of a larger web of social, economic, and technological changes that drove the Industrial Revolution.

The Congregationalists emerged from American Puritanism. The Congregational tradition was brought to America in the 1620s and 1630s by the Puritans. The Puritans were a Calvinistic group within the Church of England that desired to purify it of any remaining teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church.

Congregationalism in the United States consists of Protestant churches in the Reformed tradition that have a congregational form of church government and trace their origins mainly to Puritan settlers of colonial New England. Congregational practices concerning church governance influenced the early development of democratic institutions in New England.

Many of the nation's oldest educational institutions, such as Harvard University, Bowdoin College, and Yale University, were founded to train Congregational clergy. Congregational churches and ministers influenced the First and Second Great Awakenings and were early promoters of the missionary movement of the 19th century.

In the 20th century, the Congregational tradition in America fragmented into three different denominations: the United Church of Christ, the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches, and the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference.

The American aristocracy of today has roots in Congregationalism. For most of American history, economics, culture, and politics were dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was rooted in Puritan communitarian values. This group was educated at Ivy League institutions and believed in an ethic of noblesse oblige, the conviction that those who possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the betterment of society.

Many of the nation's oldest educational institutions, such as Harvard University, Bowdoin College, and Yale University, were founded to train Congregational clergy. Congregational churches and ministers influenced the First and Second Great Awakenings and were early promoters of the missionary movement of the 19th century.

However (obligatory caveat II), it's important to note that the American aristocracy is diverse and has been influenced by many different religious, cultural, and economic factors. While Congregationalism played a significant role, it is just one piece of a complex historical puzzle.

The split between the United Methodist Church (UMC) and the Global Methodist Church (GMC) is a recent event that has been driven by disagreements over LGBTQ rights. The GMC, a more conservative Methodist denomination, announced its official launch in May. This split was part of a widely agreed upon plan called the "Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation," or the Protocol. 

The UMC postponed its General Conference for the third time, this time until 2024. Delegates were expected to vote on proposals regarding the creation of a new denomination at the General Conference. A key stipulation in the Protocol is for the UMC to pay the new denomination $25 million to get started. Another provision outlines how individual churches that disaffiliate from the UMC and decide to join the GMC can do so "with clear title to all of their property and assets in perpetuity".

The GMC's Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline will govern how the GMC functions from its inception until its convening General Conference meets (an approximately one-to-two-year period). It borrows some features from the UMC Discipline and some ideas from the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s draft “Book of Doctrines and Discipline”.

In comparison to the splits in the Anglican Church, the split between the UMC and the GMC is much more recent and has been driven by different issues. While the splits in the Anglican Church were largely driven by theological disagreements and the desire for greater autonomy, the split between the UMC and the GMC has been driven by disagreements over social issues, particularly LGBTQ rights. However, like the earlier splits, the split between the UMC and the GMC will likely have significant implications for the future of Methodism.

Historians and theologians identify three, or sometimes four, waves of increased religious enthusiasm known as the "Great Awakenings" between the early 18th century and the late 20th century. Here are the approximate periods of each:

1. First Great Awakening (c. 1730–1755)

2. Second Great Awakening (c. 1790–1840)

3. Third Great Awakening (c. 1855–1930)

4. Fourth Great Awakening (c. 1960–1980)

Each of these "Great Awakenings" was characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelical Protestant ministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and redemption on the part of those affected, an increase in evangelical church membership, and the formation of new religious movements and denominations.

These enthusiastic outbursts have had mixed results. The Second Great Awakening gave us Emerson's Over-Soul, a greater role for women, the conversion of African-Americans which, contrary to the expectations of the slaveowners, provided the energy for the civil rights movement. Results were not always positive...

The Fourth Great Awakening, which took place in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s, involved several denominations. Here are some of them:

- The "mainline" Protestant churches, which weakened sharply in both membership and influence.

- The most conservative religious denominations, such as the Southern Baptists and Missouri Synod Lutherans, grew rapidly in numbers, spread across the United States, had grave internal theological battles and schisms, and became politically powerful.

- Other evangelical and fundamentalist denominations also expanded rapidly.

- Denominations such as the Assemblies of God, Southern Baptists, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) became more popular.

- The Pentecostal and Protestant charismatic denominations were also involved.

It's important to note (caveat III) that many new religious movements emerged during this period, such as the People's Temple and Heaven's Gate. The Fourth Great Awakening was marked by a battle between the more conservative churches and secularism in terms of issues such as LGBT rights, abortion, and creationism.

The relationship between the Great Awakenings and the health of the economy is complex and multifaceted. Some scholars have suggested that the Awakenings were influenced by economic changes and, in turn, had impacts on the economy.

For example, the Second Great Awakening was fueled by social changes and the Market Revolution, which introduced factory labor, shifted the economy from barter to wages, and connected the U.S. to global markets. This period saw a rise in emotional Christianity, promoting moral behavior and social action.

Similarly, each Great Awakening cycle begins with a phase of religious revival, propelled by the tendency of new technological advances to outpace the human capacity to cope with ethical and practical complexities that those new technologies entail. The phase of religious revival is followed by one of rising political effect and reform, followed by a phase in which the new ethics and politics of the religious awakening come under increasing challenge and the political coalition promoted by the awakening goes into decline.

Here is the historical connection between the Cavaliers and the Southern Plantocrats. 

The term "Cavaliers" refers to the royalist supporters of King Charles I and his son Charles II of England during the English Civil War, the Interregnum, and the Restoration (1642 – c. 1679). Some Cavaliers who served under King Charles I fled to Virginia. These men were offered land or other rewards by King Charles II, and most who had settled in Virginia stayed in Virginia. Many of these early settlers in Virginia were called "Second Sons" as primogeniture favored the first sons' inheriting lands and titles in England.

These early settlers formed the First Families of Virginia (FFV), who were socially prominent and wealthy. They descended from English colonists who primarily settled at Jamestown, Williamsburg, the Northern Neck, and along the James River and other navigable waters in Virginia during the 17th century. These elite families generally married within their social class for many generations and, as a result, most surnames of First Families date to the colonial period.

The Southern Plantocrats, on the other hand, were the wealthy and influential plantation owners in the Southern United States, particularly in the Antebellum South, who owned large numbers of slaves and large amounts of land. They were at the core of Virginia's plantocracy for centuries. 

So, while not all Southern Plantocrats may have been direct descendants of the Cavaliers, there is a historical lineage connecting these two groups. The Cavaliers, as early settlers, established the social and economic foundations that the Southern Plantocrats later built upon. However, it's important to note that this is a generalization and individual family histories may vary.

The concept of "status emulation," as described by the economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen, refers to the tendency of individuals or groups to imitate the behaviors, attitudes, or values of those perceived as higher status in order to gain or maintain social prestige.

It's possible that oil barons in states like Texas could have adopted certain attitudes or behaviors from their plantocrat predecessors. Both groups were/are influential in their respective eras and regions, and both amassed significant wealth through the exploitation of natural resources (land and labor for the plantocrats, and oil for the oil barons). This shared experience could have led to some degree of emulation.

However, it's important to note that this is a complex issue with many variables. The social, economic, and political contexts in which the plantocrats and oil barons operated were quite different. The plantocrats were part of a slave-based agrarian economy, while the oil barons emerged in an industrial and post-industrial context. Moreover, many oil barons came from diverse backgrounds and may not have had direct familial or cultural ties to the plantocrat class.

While there might be some elements of "status emulation" at play, it's also likely that the oil barons' attitudes and behaviors were shaped by a variety of other factors, including the economic demands of the oil industry, the political climate of the times, and their individual ambitions and personalities.

In conclusion, while it's possible that some oil barons emulated the plantocrats, it's unlikely that this was a universal or predominant trend. More research would be needed to fully understand the nuances of this relationship. It's a fascinating question, though, and speaks to the complex ways in which history and culture can influence economic behavior.

Carl Oglesby, an American writer, academic, and political activist, proposed a theory in his book 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘠𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘸𝘣𝘰𝘺 𝘞𝘢𝘳 that divided the American elite into two factions: the "Yankees" and the "Cowboys".

According to Oglesby, the "Cowboys" represent the new money, nouveau riche, and the military-industrial complex, primarily based in the Sun Belt region, which includes states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona. They are seen as reckless, provincial, and favor "progress through war". They are contrasted with the "Yankees", the old moneyed, Ivy League-educated establishment from the Northeast, who are internationalist, liberal, and favor "peace promoting".

Oglesby's classification has been influential in certain circles, particularly among those studying power structures in the U.S. It provides a framework for understanding the dynamics and conflicts within the American elite. However, like any theory, it has its critics. Some argue that it oversimplifies the complexities of power, politics, and class in America, while others question its applicability to contemporary American society.

In conclusion, while Oglesby's classification of "Cowboys" provides an interesting lens through which to view American power structures, opinions on its validity and usefulness vary.

Carl Oglesby's classification of "Cowboys" refers to the new money, nouveau riche, and the military-industrial complex, primarily based in the Sun Belt region. They are seen as reckless, provincial, and favor "progress through war".

Silicon Valley elites, on the other hand, are a group of individuals who have amassed significant wealth and influence through the technology industry. They are often characterized by their innovation, entrepreneurship, and the creation of cutting-edge technology.

While there are some similarities between the two groups - such as their wealth, influence, and the fact that they represent a form of "new money" - there are also significant differences. The Silicon Valley elites are generally more global in their outlook, and their wealth is often tied to the creation of new technologies, rather than the extraction of natural resources or the military-industrial complex.

Moreover, Silicon Valley elites are known for their efforts to shape society in ways that align with their values and visions of the future. For example, a group of Silicon Valley investors has recently been revealed as the buyers of a large amount of land in Northern California, with plans to build a utopian city that operates using clean energy.

So, while it's possible to draw some parallels between the Silicon Valley elites and Oglesby's "Cowboys", it's also important to recognize the unique characteristics and influences of these two groups. The classification of any group is ultimately a simplification, and the reality is often more complex and nuanced.

Yet Elon has definitely joined the Cowboy side in this civil struggle. He has become an ally.

"Tech bros" is an informal term often used to describe individuals, usually men, who work in the digital technology industry, especially in the United States. The term is often used in a somewhat disapproving manner, as tech bros are sometimes thought to lack good social skills and to be overly confident about their own abilities.

The term originated in Silicon Valley and was initially used to mock a particular cultural phenomenon in the Bay Area. It often conjures a specific image: a young man, usually white, who is likely to be wearing a quarter-zip Patagonia fleece vest branded with the logo of his Silicon Valley workplace. This quintessential tech bro appears to have few interests outside his high-paying job, Bitcoin, and perhaps biking.

While not necessarily sexist himself, the tech bro is often seen as an emblem of the boys’ club culture that permeates the tech industry. The term has been criticized for being overused and losing its original meaning, as it has been applied to a wide range of individuals in the tech industry.

It's important to note that while the term "tech bro" is often used in a negative context, not everyone in the tech industry fits this stereotype. There are many people in tech who are working to create more inclusive and diverse environments.

Silicon Valley elites have been known to promote certain philosophies and ideologies, but these are not typically classified as religions in the traditional sense. 

For instance, billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen has been advocating for "techno-optimism," a philosophy that emphasizes the positive impact of technology on society and dismisses those who question the benefits of tech. This philosophy is not a religion, but it does represent a set of beliefs about the role of technology in society.

Another trend in Silicon Valley is the concept of work becoming a form of religion. In her book 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦: 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘰𝘯 𝘝𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘺, Carolyn Chen explores how high-skilled workers are finding belonging, identity, purpose, and transcendence at their workplaces. Again, this is not a promotion of a traditional religion, but rather a shift in where people find meaning and purpose.

It's important to note that while these philosophies may guide the actions and beliefs of some individuals in Silicon Valley, they do not represent the views of everyone in the tech industry so far.