War and Culture, Pt. 2: The shooting starts when the talking stops

This is the second post in what will probably be at most a three-part series, the original intent of which was to provide a very pessimistic civilian's views on several questions that I have been trying to explore for some time now.

The first post looked at the intersection between war and faith, and asked the question: why is it that Western civilisation, which up until about the middle of the 20th Century had a really rather spectacular record when going to war against other civilisations going back at least 400 years, even ones just as advanced as it was and is, keeps losing pretty much every war that it fights?

This second post follows on from that by noting the following: faith that your own point of view is superior is indeed vital to winning a war- but what happens when you run into another point of view that is equally convinced that it is right, and is more willing to defend or express itself with force of arms?

The answer to that one is of course quite obvious in a general sense: the more aggressive, violent, militant ideology beats the other one like an unwanted stepchild. Nothing new about that, it's basic common sense. (Which of course brings to mind another truism- that common sense is in fact anything but common.)

When we're looking outward, at the longstanding war between Islam and Christianity, that answer suits the question perfectly. Dar al Islam is a highly aggressive, expansionistic ideology driven by an absolutist conviction that the triumph of Islam over Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and everything else, is ordained by Allah. Although that ideology is riven by internal differences and contradictions, and is every bit as factionalised as any globally prevalent ideology must be, it is still relatively monolithic compared to its competitor faiths and forms of government. Its rivals are politically weak (though not necessarily militarily so, at least not yet), squabbling, and fractured.

There is no point in holding "dialogue" with the Islamic world. You cannot negotiate for your life and freedom with an enemy that wants you dead or enslaved; the best you can do is bargain for time, so that your end comes in 20 years instead of 5. And that's about it.

But if we look inward instead, strictly at what is happening throughout the Western world right now, the answer to that question becomes a bit less trite and hits a lot closer to home.

For what we are seeing today is the clear and increasing separation, within the borders of sovereign nations, of populations into two very broad camps- and each one hates the other's guts.

If you were to look at the electoral map of the United States in 2016 by county, not by state, you would see, well, this:



And if you look at the racial composition of the United States of America, you will see this*:

The "United States of America" is in fact nothing of the sort, and has for the past twenty years or so slowly been transforming itself into (at least) two countries.

This has happened once before in America's history, of course- and the scars created by the War Between the States have still not healed. That war started because the North and the South had drifted apart at a very fundamental level. Economically, politically, and culturally, the North fundamentally different from the South, and both sides knew it.

Eventually, those differences caused the two sides to stop talking to each other completely. And that is when the worst and bloodiest war that Americans have ever fought, came to pass- because the South eventually realised that its issues with the North could no longer be solved through dialogue, and had to be settled using blood, fire, and steel.

What I am seeing brewing right now indicates that the probability of another rupture, of even greater magnitude, is now large enough to start taking seriously. And this time, the side that is most likely to cause the shooting to start is going to be on the losing side.

The Coastal Elites

One the one side, we have what has come to be called "The Establishment", a term that used to be used with a fair amount of reverence and is now pretty much a four-letter word.

This is a group that is characterised by a rigid commonality of thought ideology. The people within it believe in, as articles of faith, the key tenets of globalisation, multiculturalism, free trade, free movement of labour, tighter political union between historical enemies, and that secular liberal democracy is the highest and finest form of government ever achieved by human intelligence.

These people are defined by an almost complete disdain for bedrock values like patriotism and duty, which they regard as gauche and provincial in the extreme. They pay a great deal of attention- though most of it is lip service- to notions like "social justice" and "equality", but in reality exist primarily to perpetuate, well, themselves and their standards of living.

For all of their high-minded rhetoric about how much they want to help the less fortunate, they show a suspicious aversion to actually, y'know, helping in concrete ways. They rarely have such strength in their convictions as to put their lives and physical safety on the line to defend them.

They think largely the same way, too. They all go to the same schools and private academies and universities, they all belong to more or less the same clubs and societies, and they largely live in the same neighbourhoods- many of which are safely locked away from the great unwashed masses that they presume to rule over by electric gates, iron fences, and security guards.

They are, in fact, the "intellectuals yet idiots" of this world.

The Great Unwashed Rest

As the first map from above shows, the "Establishment" is basically concentrated in the northeast, starting in New England and stretching on down through the American coastline, through Florida, on through the Texan and Arizonan border counties, and then on into loony-lefty California and the other Left Coast states.

This is news to precisely nobody, of course, but it illustrates nicely the nature of the division of the United States. Urban versus suburban and rural. Coastal versus heartland. Cosmopolitan versus small-town. Atomised and secular versus familial and religious. The list of polar opposites that describe "them" versus "us" goes on, and on, and on.

The problem for the coastal elites is that they think that they are the real America, because they have never had to listen to or talk with anyone who thinks differently from them. Yet the real America is not in the big cities and fashionably wealthy (and almost always lily-white) suburbs. It is to be found in the American heartland of small towns, back roads, sleepy little villages, and decaying Rust Belt factories.

That America is not nearly as densely populated as its urban counterpart, which is why Donald Trump won the electoral college with a 30-state victory but lost the popular vote by 2.5 million votes. America, like most Western societies, is heavily urbanised, so the majority of its people live in the big cities and towns.

And that is why the heartland of the country is usually forgotten- because the people who are supposed to make decisions on their behalf, at least at the Federal level, are almost completely divorced from the reality of the people who sent them to the Capitol to defend their rights.

The end result is that the country is not-so-quietly tearing itself in two- and neither side is interested in talking to the other.


It's Always Been Two Countries

It is tempting to argue that this sundering of America into two (or more) separate nations- at least one of which will likely be overwhelmingly white, made up of creators and inventors and workers, and more-or-less productive types- is something to be avoided at all costs.

In reality, however, this country has pretty much always been split along ideological lines- going all the way back to the Founding itself.

On the one side, we have always had the small-government libertarian types. Back in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they were the Southern Democrats. They were primarily advocates of an agrarian-focused, decentralised, minimalist, small-government philosophy that generally left people the hell alone to get on with their own business.

On the other side, we have also always had the mercantilists, the industrialists, the big-government centralists. They believed that a strong central government was absolutely required to prevent the new nation from being overwhelmed by its competitors and sinking into irrelevance or slavery under a foreign power.

That ideological difference has persisted, in various forms and espoused by various parties, all the way through to the modern day. That is of course well known. Eventually, the divide became so deep and so bitter that it resulted in the War Between the States, which Northerners rather oxymoronically refer to as the Civil War, and Southerners somewhat more accurately refer to as the War of Northern Aggression.

That divide was eventually papered over, at least somewhat, by the North's crushing victory over the South. To this day, the South still hasn't fully recovered from that defeat and the years of the Reconstruction Era that followed- and the wounds and scars inflicted by that defeat still linger on.

But- and here is the key difference between then and now- even throughout those times of bitterest division and discord, the two sides were able to talk to each other, right up until the time for talking was over and there was nothing left to do but start shooting.

And that is precisely what America has now lost.

You will not find finer exemplars of the two spirits of America than Presidents Adams and Jefferson. One believed completely in a strong central government; the other believed equally completely in a weak one. The two argued, often contentiously and always with eloquence and conviction, in favour of their respective positions.

Yet the two of them were also closer than brothers. Their respect for each other transcended their political differences and united them in their love for their new country, and their desire to see it succeed. Not for nothing have they been called "Founding Brothers".

This is what America has lost today. The two sides of the debate no longer talk to each other. They talk past each other.

I do not necessarily claim this to be a bad thing, by the way. The reality is that the Right understands full well how the Left thinks by now. But the Left has absolutely no bloody CLUE how and why we think the way we do.

Our positions- particularly those of the alt-Right- are rooted in evidence, fact, and a cold-blooded appreciation of the realities of the human condition. Our predictive models are better than theirs because ours actually work, and because we modify the assumptions going into them when they don't work. Our ability to adapt, react, and overcome is far greater than theirs because our thought process is predicated on the fundamental axiom that Man is Flawed, Fallen, and broken, and cannot be redeemed by his fellow Man no matter how hard we try; as such, we don't get hung up on stupid shit that doesn't work.

Their mental model is outdated and deeply flawed. Their predictive skills are woefully inadequate for the new realities that they face. They are having the devil's own time adapting to the new world- a world that they never expected would exist in the first place.

I've seen this in my own family; when Donald Trump was elected, my parents and especially my sister simply could not fathom how on Earth such a disaster could have befallen the world- but because I had been paying attention to things that they hadn't been, and because I was capable of looking far beyond my own experiences at the realities on the ground, I had predicted a Trump victory since late May and was not particularly surprised when he actually did win.

And since then, as I had also predicted, he has proven to be a far more sensible President(-elect) than his campaign rhetoric had led people to believe.

But the fact remains that the two sides of the country are no longer talking to each other. And that is extraordinarily bad news- for one side, not the other.

As you see from the map above, the Left Coast elites are concentrated in specific bastions and surrounded on just about all sides by the very people that they so despise- and yet depend upon to supply all of their basic necessities in life.

I'm no military strategist, but even I can figure out that it's generally a very stupid idea to piss all over your own supply lines when surrounded by potentially hostile forces. Yet that is exactly what the Left has proceeded to do by throwing a truly epic shit-fit ever since the election of the God-Emperor.

The outcome of this increasing divide is almost surely going to be war, once again. The talking has long since stopped; I'm pretty much just waiting for the real shooting to start. The question that every American then must ask himself is, "which side do I choose?"

If you believe in what a predominantly white, productive, small-government America once stood for, then the answer is obvious: it's that sea of red out there in "flyover country" that has been treated like a cross between fungus and vomit for the better part of a quarter century by the very people who now demand that the will of those same folk be overturned by force.

*Hat tip to LTC Tom Kratman, who found that map and used it for his EveryJoe column from a while back- from whence I duly pinched the same.

Comments

  1. Great post, some good stuff I hadn't been aware of.

    Relevant to pissing on your supply lines when surrounded....

    http://www.everyjoe.com/2017/01/16/politics/why-rosie-odonnell-liberals-shouldnt-want-martial-law/#1

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of the interesting things about those two maps is that, while a cursory glance will indicate the split is racial, a more careful look will confirm that it is much more Urban vice Rural and suburban. _Lots_ of black and hispanic majority areas, in fact, went for Trump. The heavily populated Mississippi valley went Dem; the very large majority black splotches to the east and west did NOT. Heavily urbanized I-95 went Dem, but between there and the coast blacks seemed to swing for Trump.

    Those blacks are _us_, far more than urban liberal whites are. We may share a skin color with the latter, but we do not share a soul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the interesting things about those two maps is that, while a cursory glance will indicate the split is racial, a more careful look will confirm that it is much more Urban vice Rural and suburban.

      Agreed, sir, and that is indeed the point that I made above. The split is more urban vs suburban than racial.

      Nonetheless, with respect, sir, there are still many more of "their" blacks and Latinos than there are of "ours". Blacks went for Clinton 88% to 8%- an 80-point gap. Latinos went 66-28 for Clinton. Whites, by contrast, went for Trump 58-37.

      Ultimately, when the shooting does start, I predict that the divisions will appear along racial as well as socioeconomic lines. That is based on the patterns seen in similar ruptures in the past, such as in India, Africa, or the Middle East. The result will probably be at least one majority-white nation.

      I do not say that I WANT this outcome, obviously. I hope and pray that it never comes to pass. But everything that I am seeing indicates a nation being torn in two along divisions too great to bridge.

      Delete
  3. I suspect that a large chunk of the black disparity is because they're something of a captive audience now. Might not be curable. Then again, it might.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't want the shooting to start, but the biggest difference between now and then is that 'they' have sold off their industrial capacity, and 'we' have all the guns, veterans, and food.

    A repeat of the civil war would be remotely unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can still find martial spirit and guns up in Yankeeland. They'll be, most of them, what was formerly known as our Fifth Column.

      Delete
  5. Outstanding stuff!

    I want to comment on the *breathtakingly-ignorant "IYIs" (who get a passing mention in the article). Every Western leader (apart from Trump) is a member of that "club". They know NOTHING about economics and NOTHING about Islam.
    Heck - Islam is a topic that *I* could teach one of these scumbags in *half a day!* That is all it takes to ram home to them the hatred in the Islamic texts, the fact that Muslims must follow the example of Mohammed and that Muslims have massacred an estimated 270 million people (and counting) in the last 1400 years. Oh, and I would also mention that invasion (as is happening in Europe now) is part and parcel of Islam. So is LYING to non-Muslims.

    When you have a large (and increasing) section of the populace who are LIGHT-YEARS ahead of the West's leaders in their intelligence and knowledge, that is a recipe for MASSIVE unrest and warfare.
    My guess for when Europe erupts in flames is around 2025. It will take that long for the "penny to drop" for the remaining leftist morons.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts