Civil War Comes to the West (2023)
militarystrategymagazine.comI would like to think that we will make it, as long as they don't create actual concentration camps by trying to deport millions of immigrants at the same time.
Is anyone tracking any large detainment camps?
But in general we need to maintain food supplies overall. For everyone.
> Is anyone tracking any large detainment camps?
Haven't heard about the Chinese ones in the news for some time, but I'd expect they haven't gone away.
The newly released Chinese animated film Nezha 2 can actually be applied to the current social divisions in the West, but not many Westerners know its core expression.
Didn't they already do that, years and years ago?
Two things:
1. Should have (2023) in the title.
2. Civil war is unlikely, because the stakes are too high.
There is a conflict of philosophies pulling the "West" in two directions. Small-government oligarchy vs big-government monarchy. (If you thought it was "Republican vs Democrat" or "left vs right" or "mass deporation vs California" like ilaksh here, you have too limited a perspective and need to dig deeper). But I think it's morelikely that the US will be given over to one side or the other in a grand trade.
Apropos book: The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War by J. Sharlet
The Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch (indirectly), and Paul Harvey types of talk radio/cable "news"/streaming have been wildly-successful in dividing and conquering America by convincing a large fraction of Americans that their interests coincide with the billionaires'.
Bonus book: Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by C. Johnson
> That is because the major threat to the security and prosperity of the West today emanates from its own dire social instability, structural and economic decline, cultural desiccation and, in my view, elite pusillanimity.
The writer is insightful, but the write-up is falling to the same ideological traps it’s admonishing. The problem is no society is safe from factionalism as intergroup competitions will always lead to groups which are lower in the socioeconomic hierarchy. The grievances of lower status groups will always be open to exploit from external destabilizing forces.
What’s missing from a globalism-oriented discourse is a focus on national cultural identity, but it’s a mistake to believe that commonalities in race or religion will lead to some kind of stabler societies. In case the writer is forgetting, freedom from persecution by a different group of white Christians is the origin story of the United States. Therefore, returning to that state of nationalism, one focused on race and religion, will not result in anything different from the current state of fragile democracies.
The problem now is two-fold: 1) Many in society get left behind because they simply cannot compete, and those who get left behind most often didn’t have intergenerational wealth or stability to rely upon for continued success, so their race or ethnicity or culture is immaterial. 2) Competitions between different nations will always exist, and they will always conduct destabilizing activities against each other.
What’s needed, I think, are more welfare-oriented capitalist nations, but the tribal nature of cultures needs to be diminished by focusing “tribe” tendencies into national tendencies, where the nation may consist of any number of subgroups. Actors who want to rile up subgroup divisions will have a harder time doing so when people have something to protect, usually their own stuff, family, or sense of well-being.
The “jungle” Borrell mentions in the introduction is everywhere because most people are brutish, but you’ll never find out because they’re too busy with work or raising kids. In fact, it was really the spark of civilization in ancient Sumeria, and then the Middle East, which made “the West” into anything it is today—the cultural and scholarly exchange, and ensuing tensions, between the different cultures in the densely populated region of Europe and Middle East resulted in different thrusts of technological and societal advancements. Whereas populations on different continents had the luxury to spread out, and thus found themselves comfortable societal development minimas. So I remain unconvinced that one can be safe from the “jungle” out there, when the jungle exists inside you.
There’s a lot of malfeasance in many countries which squanders their natural resources and treasuries, but faux-democratic traditions trap the populous into believing that their nations are functioning, but it’s really the outsiders or Capitalism which is to blame. If instead the United Nations made a goal of enforcing welfare programs in each nation state, it will both address the inherent corruption in various nations, and also force people in those nations to find the real cause of their strife and suffering.
Couple of quick addendums before (an attempt at) elaborating "my" "humane policing" strategy..
1. Swiss might have what you call an "authentic democratic tradition". Insofar as it's doubly unique-- few Swiss seem to question its uninterrupted efficacy (at managing the historical catholic/proddy/ethnolinguistic divisions,eg)
(their geographical demarcation from the rest of Europe helps, while America's relative isolation works against a "common defence" mechanism. Conscription in CH is a nonissue, even helps to build solidarity. Possible to de-confound this?)
>71% of respondents said that Switzerland’s direct democracy was the most effective way of promoting social cohesion. According to Sotomo, it gives the population a sense of self-empowerment.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/identities/cohesion-in-switzerl...
2. Otoh, in the US there is still a comparable sense of local solidarity, e.g., when disaster strikes the NYC or LA (compared to the 1980s)
Dually, the sense of strife seems to be strongest in artificially compressed geographic spaces: e.g. when representatives of the different values-based USian tribes converge to jostle for an advantage (contrast with the Superbowl!)
(Fuelled by your "elite pusillanimity"? Lack of actual violence make national politics brutal as academia haha. For the US, 3 (sadly) impedance-matched jungles: tribal, federal, international)
> 71% of respondents said that Switzerland’s direct democracy was the most effective way of promoting social cohesion. According to Sotomo, it gives the population a sense of self-empowerment.
I agree, which is why I am not entirely convinced by the Neofedualism arguments of late. But it’s undeniable that increasing polarization makes some parts of the democratic tradition infeasible.
>not entirely convinced
But you're somewhat convinced? Interesting .. (if I didn't miss the sarcasm) would like to hear your arguments for (arab-style?) neofeudalism.. are they along the lines of de Maistre/Yarvin?
I just think uninformed opinions can dilute democracies, and can make nation states fragile when external actors can opinion shop to create support for, or against, some point of view. The internet makes this especially easy since anyone’s profile can be popularized by external actors at little to no expense.
But this is a game which all nations play to some extent. I understand the importance of this gameplay for statecraft, but I don’t like the way it can impact democratic institutions, like journalism and free speech.
I don’t think the cure to any of these, for the sake of preserving democracies, is authoritarianism, instead I think it’s better to proliferate “moderate” thinking. If someone isn’t fully-aligned with one ideological tribe or another, it’s harder to sway them to any self-destructive position, like civil war-type conflict.
It's hard to have moderate thinking in a 2-party (federal) system, where both are of comparable strength. Even if each start off equanimous on any given stance. Trying to think of a counter-example. Elites will have to be brought up with the doctrine that moderation is strength? Easy to blame character but prevailing cultural attitudes are also impt (aside from the ones towards misinformation, bad faith etc).
You’re right, but only if voters have an obligation to vote along party lines (tribalism). If, however, they’re encouraged to vote for purple or independent representatives, then no one party can hope for sustained majority control. I think the selling point of moderate politics is cultural stability, but maybe there’s something I haven’t considered, and this is not the most ideal solution for factionalism.