The Ouroboros of downstream

… and the circle of causation

Jun 22, 2025

Andrew Breitbart famously said that “Politics is downstream from culture.”
It is an astute observation, but it also begs for the questions: what is downstream from politics and upstream from culture?

The point Breitbart was trying to make is that we cannot change politics without changing the culture that is controlling/dictating/influencing it.
I will argue that several factors are at play resulting in complex streams of influences creating a circular evolution best illustrated by the Ouroboros.

Culture is downstream from history, ideology and shared belief systems. Culture is also heavily influenced by the economy and the environment. All of them, in turn, are influenced by politics.

Politics is downstream from culture.
Culture is downstream from ideology.
For this argument, I define ideology as the expression of our collective vision and understanding of our past, present and future; a coherent view of a preferred direction for society.
Our (conflicting) visions (ideologies) are downstream from philosophy, sociology, social psychology and religions.
These last three are downstream from a slew of environmental factors, including the economy, science and technology,
…. which in turn are downstream from the institutional/political/regulatory framework we live in, and the policies influencing them.
All the while every single one of us is heavily influenced by our personalities and preferences best understood in terms of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology.

…. And so, the snake bites its tail as we go round and round trying to find our way swimming in the streams of our realities and their narratives.
Politics is also shaping the things that shape politics. Politics touches everything, and it is, therefore, downstream from itself.

The point is NOT that Breitbart’s observation is a simplification, but that it is just a small part of a much bigger, and more complex picture.
Every element of the list above can be probed further:

What is politics?
Electoral politics and the illusion of representation?
The public circus of hearings, floor debates and question periods?
The posturing for the electorate?
The parti-politics of jockeying for more powerful decision-making position?
The backroom dealings to advance the interests of lobbyists?
The hopeless task of controlling the permanent bureaucracy?
The total sum of policies, new laws and regulation?
The redistribution of money?
Which part is defined by culture and how?

What is culture?
The expression of our shared beliefs and values?
Our habits and behaviour?
The understanding of our shared history?
Our collective achievements like our art, science and literature?
The collective image of ourselves?
The things that differentiate us from others?
In what ways can these affect politics?

What are visions?
If culture is shared, why is it so divided?
Why do we have conflicting visions?
Why can’t we have a shared one?
How can we define the essence of the most dominant ones?
Is a compromise possible?
If yes, then why not? (this may sound funny, but it is a serious question)

What is faith, philosophy and the social sciences?
Are they supposed to explain or motivate?
Is it possible to have any of them without an ideological bias?
Don’t they all represent an ideological bias?
Are there patterns in ideological predispositions?
If yes, what defines them?

What defines our social environment?
The economy, demographics, standard of living, technology, regulations, media, reigning scientific paradigms, intellectual fashions, class, status, urbanization and education are all upstream from our cultural vision.
Can we say that any of them matter more than any other?
Should they be seen as ideological or environmental influences?

The real political framework
… is the regulatory state.
Taxation, social security, unemployment policies, professional accreditation and regulation, government programs and regulations are all playing a crucial role in how we relate to politics.
Are regulations environmental influences?
Are they culture or politics?

The Breitbart quote suggests that if we address the ‘real’ problem - culture in this case – then the resulting problems (of politics) will be solved as well.
But if you pick any problem, you will find that you can walk a very long path of proximate causes without ever finding a ‘real’ culprit.

Ultimately, we are all downstream from politics and whatever we do is just a response to what politics is doing to us.

Every part of the flow of influences plays a part in our lives and our perception of it.
It is not wise to pick just two parts of the web and analyze them without considering the rest. Nothing can be fixed without a clear understanding of the complexity of the problems. There is no solution without side-effects and ‘unintended’ consequences.

Breitbart assumed that there are actual answers, objectively right or wrong, and the culture war is about convincing our adversaries about the correctness and/or righteousness of our position.
But what if that is not possible? The word ‘convincing’ suggests reason, which will do nothing to positions based on emotions.
Reason and emotions are like water and oil. They just don’t mix.

What if our visions are hardwired into us as a propensity, an affinity to one side as opposed to the other?
What if they are dependent on environmental factors?
There are good reasons to suggest such possibility.
It is a well-known and widely discussed phenomenon that urbanization can be seen as an environmental factor pushing political propensity to the left.
People who live closer to nature are more likely to be conservative.

All this may sound very complicated, but it isn’t. It is complex, but not complicated. We are the product of our genes and our environment. Our experiences can change our genes. Our actions affect our environment, which in turn will have an effect on us.

Here is the simplest layout of the snake:

We are all the products of our history and our environment.
History in this context is our entire evolutionary history, personality and sociobiological makeup. Environment is culture, ideology and societal visions.
Our actions change our environment, slightly tilting its balance.
This new environment, in turn, will change us, slightly, which brings us back to the first point, the snake biting its tail.

The culture war is very real, but it will not be won with arguments between the two sides. It will be won by the prevalence of their proponents.

The culture war has no endpoints, only directions. I don’t think it will ever end, as it is with us since the beginning of recorded history.
I can only hope that it will go in the direction that will help the survival of our species.
What can make that happen?

A clear understanding of your position.
The clear articulation of the vision.
Fighting for policies that will create a fertile environment for our desired outcome.

The left was winning for a long time, but the tides may have turned; both in Europe and the Americas.
Unfortunately, the conditions that are promoting the socialist vision are not gone; they are not even clearly identified.

There is a lot to do. Let’s hope that we can get to them. This post is just the beginning.

I was suffering with this post terribly. Rewriting, deleting whole section, etc.
The difficulty, as always, is the creation of a linear argument on a complex system.

I have been planning it for a long time, and now I stuck it between two posts with personal anecdotes, hoping for this one to tie them together.

Like everything else on Substack, this is a reader supported publication.
You can help it by following or subscribing.
You can engage with it by clicking on like and/or commenting.
A ‘like’ costs nothing and is worth a lot.
You can help this Stack grow by sharing, recommending, quoting or referencing it.
You can support it by pledging your financial support.
Any and all of it will be much appreciated.