In a post that happens to include a bit of mulling over the fate of Western civilization, Jay Nordlinger adds this aside:
(Want to know some good news? The threat of radical political Islam receded faster than many of us expected. It still lurks, of course — what doesn’t? But I well remember the concerns of the first decade of this century. Many of us were settling in for a long twilight struggle. In any event . . .)
This reminds me of something to brag about. Several years ago I predicted that the region from north Africa to the Mideast to central Asia would soon see a substantial decline as a source of terrorism. The reason was simple:
Unlike the US and Europe, this region didn't begin phasing out leaded gasoline in the '70s and '80s. That had to wait until the late '90s for some countries and a few years later for others.
Significantly, both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, ground zero for the production of terrorists, phased out lead around the year 2000, which means that teens and young men in both countries have now largely grown up without lead poisoning—and within a decade everyone under the age of 30 will be lead free. In the same way that this led to a plummeting crime rate in the US, it was almost certain to lead to a plummeting terrorism rate in these two countries.
Other countries have lagged behind a bit, but most of them phased out leaded gasoline in the mid-2000s or a few years later. The laggards are Algeria, Iraq, and Yemen, and it's no coincidence that all three remain very violent places.
I hardly need to say that human history is full of violence and revolution that had nothing to do with lead poisoning. Nor is lead the sole reason for the decline of Mideast terrorism. Nevertheless, the lead epidemic of the late 20th century had a huge impact, and as it fades away the level of senseless violence—on average—is likely to decline as well. That's true all over the world, not just on the police blotters of the United States.
But ... but then, how do we explain the rise of Trumpism?
We need data on the blood lead levels of right-wing militia members.
The teens who caused the 70's and 80's surge in violence aged into voters who make equally terrible decisions at the ballot box.
(I'm kidding, of course. Well...I'm pretty sure I'm kidding)
I'm not. People who were in their teens in the 70s and 80s are now in their fifties and sixties, which fits with the Trump demographic voting group.
Yea, but Trump voters are concentrated in places least affected by leaded gasoline. So sadly I suspect his election is due to more mundane forms of social and political dysfunction.
The only reason Trump did well in Ohio was because of his supposed "anti-trade" and support for Blue Collar jobs in 2016. Then in 2020 they said the Trump economy was good.........these are the same dudes that were into Reagan. Gave Bush about a 5% victory in 2000. Yeah, they are low information voters. When unemployment falls under 3% this cycle, they may learn the Trump economy era was "incomplete".
Obama manipulated these voters as well.
Trump voters might be concentrated in places least affected byt leaded gas, but Kevin's lead hypothesis does explain Trump himself.
Their regions may be least affected by leaded gas, but are their professions?
Foreign backed. The so called Patriot Movement is actually at a 50 year low in terms of members. Trumpism is a dialectical and useless term. I call it zionism.
Trumpism is a personality cult, end of story.
What are the ages of his majority supporters?
Case closed.
MAGATS born between 1960-80 -- Generations Jones & X, plus early Baby Bust -- were lead exposed thru 1990.
Target practice. I've noticed a trend with many friends and acquaintances who got overboard with guns and regular trips, (2-3x a week), to the range during the Obama years go from right of center to right wing and borderline dementia. Certainly the gun culture feeds into this behavior, but I really feel they are showing symptoms of lead poisoning as well.
Those people have always been here. They were the Klan, then the John Birch Society, then the Reaganites, then the Tea Party and then Trump. Lead doesn't explain everything. There is always a base level of background dumbassery.
Hmm, couldn't this just as easily be attributed to regression to the mean? There have always everywhere been revival-type movements that burn hot and die out.
Absolutely. ISIS scam itself took a lot of greater dweebs out of the gene pool. Funny thing is, Russia's "Q" scam is doing the same who go for Christian zionism.
I have always said, Ecological terror and social nationalistic white supremacy is the next "extremism". I just give the warning. Socialism and ecological "purity" has long been cultural indo-european heritage. One that many people have forgotten due to Christian bias. Progressives are going to be heavily challenged during this period. I suspect people who are in "milita's" and "progressives" will be hugging each other for support.
Both can be true.
Well there's also the issue of US involvement in the region...
One theory (as far as I know never refuted) was that this was never about Islam per se, except insofar as that presented an "us vs them" marker; it was always about random poorly thought out US interference in the region.
And the Trump years, whatever else you think of the man, foreign-policy-wise have been characterized by a bunch of shouting at the Chinese and pretty much nothing else.
I'd score Trump as essentially correct in his claims that
- there was a US deep state (ie mostly independent of whether Dems or Reps were in power)
- that deep state loved nothing more than to meddle in other countries, and
- this meddling resulted in vastly more trouble than whatever minor temporary wins it gave us.
Now will the deep state resurrects itself and its behavior without an ideology as aggressive as Trumpism to hold it back? Honestly I wouldn't be surprised.
And for all the Democratic (and centrist Republican) cheering, I wouldn't be surprised if Don Jr is looking pretty good for 2024 because this deep state will have managed in four years to create yet another foreign policy fsckup, which Don Jr will (and accurately) be able to point out as the different between when Trumpism runs the country and when politics as usual does so.
Where is leaded gasoline still used, or was last used?
A little dated:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-that-still-use-leaded-gasoline.html
"The majority of the countries have embraced the ban, but some countries still use leaded gasoline. These countries are Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar, North Korea, and Afghanistan."
Not sure how Cuba is keeping it's vintage cars running.
yes, should have proofed it better, but no edit feature.
!
North Korea and Afghanistan, should have guessed.
The terrorism threat was wildly overhyped to begin with. Some nutjobs with box cutters planned well, got lucky, and killed a bunch of people.
In 2001, a lot of folks in politics and the media hadn't really got their heads around the end of the Cold War, and they latched onto 9/11 as the return of the old days. Both the Bush Administration and Al-Qaeda frantically encouraged this, and for the same reason--it gave each of them a huge boost in support, which they badly needed.
At the end of the day, however, Al Qaeda never managed to do much damage to the West. We did a lot more to ourselves in our frantic response. It was the Middle East that was most vulnerable to AQ and its offshoots; and even there, I doubt they could have done that much if the Bush Administration hadn't stormed into Iraq and kicked over everyone's applecarts.
Pingback: Whatever Happened to the War Against Terrorism? (Kevin Drum) – thepn.org
Pingback: Whatever Happened to the War Against Terrorism? | Later On
The islamic terrorist acts in Europe (peak around 2016/2017) were mostly committed by young men who were born and raised in Europe. So how did they get their load of lead?
The lead explanation may work as an answer for the reclining number of overall violent attacks but not for ones that are relatively rare like terrorist attacks, which are very specific in their motivation and political or religious background (compared e.g. to domestic violence, youth street gang violence etc).
Nobody is claiming lead poisoning is the sole cause of violence in our world, or that a person who is free from the brain damage associated with lead is magically immune to any and all malign influences (including various ideologies). The claim, rather, is that environmental lead tends to increase various social pathologies above what they would be absent its presence. To cite your example, it's entirely possible (I'd say likely) that the incidence of acts of terrorism in Europe might well have been greater had the continent not regulated the use of lead.
Trump decided to let the Russians win it. 🙂
That's been true since the Dubrovka Theatre siege in October 2002.
Research wanted on the possible behavioural costs of particulate air pollution. Unlike lead, this is still very much with us, and will only fade away after another decade of electric vehicles (about 25% of new cars in Europe currently).
Eh what?
Lead has as an element well known toxic effects on the nervous system, effects known in broad terms all the way back to early 20th century.
Particulates is not even a single element but a descriptive of form.
Completely different subject and there's no particular reason to confuse lead, a specific element, with a descriptive of a physical form of pollution (nor any particular reason to imply effects like lead - apples and rocks comparison.
It's bad enough on its own for impact on lung function.
That's why the first word in my comment is "research". Particulate pollution (IIRC mostly carbon) has a documented correlation with Alzheimer's, so other neurological damage is clearly a possibility.
Particulates are way too big to get into the nervous system. They pretty much stop at the lungs.
Science works. Who would have thought?