{"id":165547,"date":"2025-12-21T06:47:54","date_gmt":"2025-12-21T14:47:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=165547"},"modified":"2025-12-21T06:51:05","modified_gmt":"2025-12-21T14:51:05","slug":"jeremy-carl-why-the-lost-generation-is-a-lost-opportunity-the-problem-with-jacob-savages-viral-article-on-millennial-white-men","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=165547","title":{"rendered":"Jeremy Carl: Why \u201cThe Lost Generation\u201d is a Lost Opportunity – The Problem with Jacob Savage’s Viral Article on Millennial White Men."},"content":{"rendered":"

Jeremy Carl writes<\/a>: <\/p>\n

Savage seems to respect and to some extent even revere the very institutions that have spit on him and his White male millennial comrades. And his tendency to focus on the experience of himself and his friends means that he puts the spotlight solely on millennials\u2014 but as many others have said\u2014 (and his own data show!) Zoomers arguably have it just as bad or worse.<\/p>\n

His is the lament of the intellectual dark web (IDW) \u2014the so-called \u201chomeless liberals\u201d \u2014people who at some level still believe in the elite system and refuse to give up that belief even in the wake of overwhelming evidence that it has betrayed them. But it is far from clear that such a belief is either clear-headed or admirable. Savage and his subjects can be quite self-critical at times, but at others they seem to shrink back from acting on the logical conclusions of their observations. Savage, like his IDW contemporaries, seems content to fish in the Rubicon rather than to cross it and travel to terrain that would mark him to the establishment not just as a critic but as an enemy.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, his framing of this as something new shows a major blind spot with respect to the travails of earlier generations of White working class men, who had their blue-collar jobs shipped overseas and who were chased from their neighborhoods decades before\u2014while the forerunners of the \u201ccreative class\u201d whites whose current plight he ably describes, did nothing to stop their dispossession. Indeed, they were often the authors of it. For these working class Whites, the tragedy started decades ago, not in 2014.<\/p>\n

Indeed, Savage\u2019s story, and this to me is its principal weakness, is not really so much about the plight of White men but White establishment liberal men, something he implicitly acknowledges at a couple of different points in the piece. But for *conservative* White men, the gig was up far earlier than a decade ago. There were many reasons, for example, that I left my doctoral program at Stanford University in the late 2000s, many years before the alleged crisis that Savage describes. But arguably chief among them was that it became clear to me that even in my relatively less political field of study, as someone who was quite capable, but not a certified genius, there was simply no place in academia for me that would not require me to fundamentally compromise my principles. Indeed, had my own intellect and courage been in greater supply, that was really something I could have determined before even applying to Stanford in the mid-2000s.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Carl\u2019s essay is a classic example of intra-Right friction. It represents a collision between the “Old Right” (or the established populist Right) and the “Disaffected Liberal” (or Intellectual Dark Web) cohort. Carl argues that while Savage identifies the correct symptoms (systemic exclusion of white males), he fails to identify the correct cause (institutional malice) or the correct cure (joining the political Right).<\/p>\n

In 2024, Jeremy Carl published the book, The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Here is a critique of the essay\u2019s rhetorical strategies, strengths, and blind spots.<\/p>\n

Carl\u2019s strongest intellectual contribution is his differentiation between the “Working Class” timeline and the “Creative Class” timeline.<\/p>\n

The Critique: Savage frames the crisis of white male exclusion as a phenomenon that began roughly around 2014 (the “Great Awokening”). Carl correctly identifies this as a solipsistic view held by coastal elites. He points out that the white working class faced this displacement (via offshoring and affirmative action) decades earlier.<\/p>\n

The Effectiveness: This effectively paints Savage\u2019s complaints as the “whining of the privileged.” Carl argues that the “creative class” only started caring about dispossession when the leopard finally came to eat their faces. This undermines the moral authority of Savage\u2019s lament, repositioning it as a loss of privilege rather than a discovery of injustice.<\/p>\n

Carl utilizes the data Savage unearthed to validate the premise while attacking the conclusion. He highlights the specific numbers regarding academic hiring to prove that the exclusion is systemic, not incidental.<\/p>\n

Yale: Since 2018, only 6 out of 76 (7.9%) junior Humanities hires were white men.<\/p>\n

Brown: Since 2022, only 3 out of 45 (approx. 6.7%) junior hires in humanities\/social sciences were white men.<\/p>\n

By isolating these numbers, Carl moves the discussion from “grievance” to empirical reality. However, he uses these numbers to argue that “reform” is impossible\u2014a conclusion Savage hesitates to make.<\/p>\n

The core emotional conflict in the essay is Carl\u2019s frustration with the “Homeless Liberal” (or IDW) archetype.<\/p>\n

The “Crawl Back” Mentality: Carl critiques Savage\u2019s subjects for wanting to be re-admitted to the elite institutions that despise them. He identifies a “battered spouse” dynamic where the rejected men still seek validation from their abusers.<\/p>\n

The Cultural Chasm: Carl identifies a crucial sociological barrier: Savage\u2019s cohort finds the “Red State” aesthetic (guns, religion, Trump) culturally repulsive (“loathsome”).<\/p>\n

Critique of Carl\u2019s Approach: While Carl\u2019s analysis is sharp, his rhetorical strategy is arguably self-defeating. He employs a strategy of “mockery and mandate” (“BE A FREAKING MAN”) rather than persuasion. By demanding that disaffected liberals immediately adopt the entire cultural package of the MAGA Right, he may be reinforcing the very hesitation he criticizes. He validates their fear that the Right is hostile and demanding, rather than building a bridge for them to cross.<\/p>\n

Carl\u2019s essay suffers from a “No True Scotsman” fallacy regarding opposition to the Left. He dismisses the “protective coloration” and “allyship mindset” of white men remaining in institutions as cowardice. While likely true in many cases, Carl leaves no room for the strategic value of subversion from within. His worldview is binary: one must either be a loud, “fist-shaking” outsider (like himself) or a cowardly insider. This ignores the complexity of survival in a hegemonic culture and dismisses the potential utility of having “sleepers” inside elite institutions.<\/p>\n

The essay functions as a Jeremiad\u2014a mournful complaint and a call to repentance.<\/p>\n

Strengths: The prose is vigorous and unapologetic. Phrases like “fish in the Rubicon rather than to cross it” are evocative and summarize the political indecision of the IDW perfectly.<\/p>\n

Weaknesses: The tone veers into ad hominem (“cowardly,” “sucked up to it”). It assumes that the only reason one might not join the populist Right is a lack of courage, ignoring genuine ideological differences (e.g., a liberal belief in secularism or free trade) that might make the populist Right unappealing to a Princeton grad, regardless of how much they hate wokeness.<\/p>\n

Jeremy Carl\u2019s essay is a polemic against half-measures.<\/p>\n

He successfully exposes the narcissism of the “Lost Generation”\u2014millennials who are shocked that the identity politics they once tolerated have finally targeted them. However, by framing the solution as a demand for total cultural submission to the Right (“clinging to guns and religion”), Carl highlights why the coalition between the “Old Right” and the “New Disaffected” remains fragile. He offers them a political home, but insults them at the doorstep.<\/p>\n

A significant portion of Carl\u2019s emotional heat comes from the classic resentment of the “Early Adopter” watching the mainstream finally catch up but getting the credit (and the details) wrong.<\/p>\n

You can read the essay not just as a political critique, but as a turf war. Carl is staking his claim as the “O.G.” of this specific grievance, and his irritation with Savage is deeply personal: I was shouting this when it was dangerous; you are whispering it now that it is obvious.<\/p>\n

Here is how the “I was here first” dynamic shapes the entire piece:<\/p>\n

1. The “Stolen Valor” of Suffering<\/p>\n

Carl explicitly contrasts his own timeline with Savage\u2019s to highlight a difference in courage.<\/p>\n

The Narrative: Carl left his Stanford doctoral program in the late 2000s\u2014voluntarily\u2014because he foresaw the ideological rot. He portrays this as a proactive, principled sacrifice.<\/p>\n

The Complaint: Savage and his cohort are only complaining now because they tried to play the game and lost. They didn’t leave on principle; they were “blocked.”<\/p>\n

The Subtext: Carl is saying, “I sacrificed my career for the truth. You sacrificed your dignity for a career you didn’t even get.” He views Savage\u2019s complaints as the whining of a failed opportunist, whereas he views his own stance as that of a martyred prophet.<\/p>\n

2. The “Christopher Columbus” Effect<\/p>\n

Carl is annoyed that Savage is being feted for “discovering” a continent that Carl has been living on for a decade.<\/p>\n

The Book Plug: Carl awkwardly but pointedly mentions his book, The Unprotected Class, early in the essay. This is his way of saying, “I literally wrote the book on this.”<\/p>\n

The Resentment: It is infuriating for a specialist to watch a generalist write a viral article that covers the same ground with less depth but more fanfare. Savage\u2019s article is “viral” because it is written by a liberal for liberals\u2014it has the “shock of the new” for that audience. For Carl, it is stale news repackaged for people who ignored him for years.<\/p>\n

3. The “Diet Coke” Version of the Truth<\/p>\n

Carl\u2019s “I was here first” attitude is also an ideological critique. He believes that because he was there first, he understands the full picture, whereas Savage offers a watered-down, palatable version.<\/p>\n

The Critique: Carl views Savage as the “safe” version of the anti-white racism argument. Savage frames it as “unfairness” (a liberal value). Carl frames it as “enemy action” (a Schmittian\/political value).<\/p>\n

The Fear: Carl fears that if Savage becomes the “voice” of this issue, the movement will be co-opted and declawed. He is gatekeeping the grievance because he believes the “new guys” are going to ruin the purity of the backlash by trying to be polite about it.<\/p>\n

4. Vindication vs. Erasure<\/p>\n

This is the bitter irony for Carl. He is vindicated by Savage\u2019s data (everything he predicted came true), but he is erased by the media coverage.<\/p>\n

When Abigail Shrier calls Savage\u2019s piece “the article of the year,” it implicitly erases the years of work done by Carl, Steve Sailer, and others in the “dissident right” sphere.<\/p>\n

Carl\u2019s essay is a reminder: You are praising him for saying what you called me a racist for saying five years ago. The “I was here first” is a demand for an apology as much as it is a claim of priority.<\/p>\n

Jeremy Carl is experiencing the Cassandra Curse: he told everyone this would happen, was ignored (or reviled), and now that it is happening, the people who ignored him are acting like they discovered the problem. His essay is a way of saying, “Welcome to the party, pal. You’re late, you’re dressed wrong, and you still don’t understand what’s actually going on.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jeremy Carl writes: Savage seems to respect and to some extent even revere the very institutions that have spit on him and his White male millennial comrades. And his tendency to focus on the experience of himself and his friends … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21791],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-america"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=165547"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165547\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":165551,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165547\/revisions\/165551"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=165547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=165547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=165547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}