It’s Inevitable?

Most of Current Year America would be recognizable to a time-traveler from the Year 2000.  They didn’t have social media back in those dim dark days, of course, but the technology was substantially there — “it’s like email and a video conference, but on your mobile phone” wouldn’t seem too outlandish.  The more cynical the time traveler, of course, the easier he’d find it to swallow the presidencies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump, but no one who paid any attention during the Clinton years could really be surprised by them.  Hell, they were mocking “cancel culture” back in 1994, for pete’s sake, when the Internet was still mostly used to argue about Star Trek with other Defense Department contractors.  People forget that Idiocracy (2006) bombed at the box office, mostly because it seemed trite — “we’re already there, buddy.”

The only thing that would really baffle our time traveler is a doozy: The seeming acceptance of the idea, by a large and ever-growing segment of the population, that some kind of violent political upheaval is just around the corner.  America had its fault lines back then, of course, and there was no shortage of lunatics out there eager to turn the nation into a Worker’s Paradise, but as late as 2008 they were largely confined to academia and the op-ed section of the New York Times.  Their avatar was Dennis Kucinich, whose claims of a close encounter seemed so plausible because he came off like Mork from Ork’s dorky little brother.  They seemed, at worst, to be hippie fossils.  A Department of Peace?  Groovy, man.

But they meant it.  Every word.  Obama’s eight-year kleptocracy convinced them to pull the mask off, and of course Trump’s election drove them completely around the bend.  The Department of Peace is really the Ministry of Love, and when Hillary Clinton proclaimed that the message of 1984 is “trust the government,” she meant it.  She and O’Brien are spiritual cousins.  All Leftists are, and none of them even bother trying to hide it anymore.  Like the man says: They hate you, and want you dead.  What part of that is so hard to understand?

Even the dimmest dimbulbs on the “Right” are starting to grasp it.  A recent post at Ace of Spades, of all places, ended with the Z Man’s refrain: “We’re not voting our way out of this.”

The Ace of Spades guys, I’m sure I don’t have to remind you, sincerely believed Megyn Kelly was a hard-hitting conservative journalist.  When even those noodle-armed choirboys think revolution is just around the corner, you’d best stock up on ammo.

That’s the thing about violent upheavals, though — pretty much everyone knows they’re coming.  Maybe in the ancient world you could be excused for not knowing the Huns were thundering your way, but modern communications make things pretty clear.  Even supposedly out-of-nowhere events like World War I were taken as inevitable by lots of people — perhaps the majority of the common folk — in all combatant nations.  The Kaiser surely wasn’t building all those warships just to look pretty, and “revenge for Sedan” was France’s animating philosophy almost from the minute the shooting stopped…. which was 1870, if your European history is a little rusty.  The continent’s two dominant military powers had been spoiling for a rematch for almost half a century by the time Gavrilo Princip did his thing.  For most people in most nations at the time, the prevailing emotion was relief — what the hell took so long?

World War II, same deal.  Just to stick with a theme, George Orwell took it as read that Hitler’s election meant a second war with Germany, sooner than later.  In his personal politics Orwell was nuttier than squirrel shit, but his understanding of political behavior was second to none.  He had a very great talent for distilling what great masses of people were thinking about the large events of their day.  If Orwell thought war was inevitable, surely Nigel Sixpack thought so, too.

Even the American Civil War — the first one, I mean — was greeted more with relief than shock.  European “intellectuals” could convince themselves that neither the Kaiser nor the Fuhrer meant what he so often said, but even American “intellectuals” knew the fire-eaters were serious.  There’s a longstanding joke, attributed to Lincoln, about Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  “So you’re the little lady who started this war,” he was supposed to have quipped to Harriet Beecher Stowe.  The Mount Vernon Association of Experts has yet to weigh in, but it’s true in spirit if not in fact.  Think about it for a sec:  How far down the road to disunion does a society have to be before a novel like that gets published?  If he’s still alive, the Turner Diaries guy must be frantically cranking out a sequel.  He’d make millions.

Hell, even our so-called “intellectuals” think civil war is a possibility.  I’m told The Altantic has a thumbsucker up discussing it.  They blame it all on Trump, natch, but again, The Atlantic is the Liberal version of Ace of Spades — uptight, painfully earnest goobers who just want to be loved by the big girls on the alphabet networks.  Blaming it on Trump is a foregone conclusion, but the very fact that they’ve mooted the question means it’s time to panic…

… or not, because as the blackpillers in Our Thing keep pointing out, there’s no revolutionary leadership.  Civil War 1.0 was chock-a-block with impressive dudes with real political skills.  Only field specialists and other enthusiasts have heard of, say, William Lowndes Yancey, but he was a heavyweight politician who could really wind up a crowd — you don’t win a parliamentary fight against Stephen A. Douglas without some serious chops.  Who do we have that’s anywhere close?

That’s the last fact about big violent upheavals.  They’re easy to see coming, but very hard to actually instigate.  Ever seen college kids rush the field after winning a sportsball championship?  They’re lining up, eager to go… but they hesitate.  The arena cops have to let them go.  The cops always do these days, of course, since it’s “tradition,” but drunk idiots have been running out onto the field ever since sports were invented.  They didn’t tear down goalposts at the Yale/Harvard game back in the 1920s, not because there weren’t a lot of drunk idiots in the stands — trust me on this one — but because even at their drunkest, those idiots knew it was the apocalypse if they did.  They needed permission to rush the field.

Who’s going to give us permission to rush the field?  You know the answer, and so do I… but I really hope someone can change my mind.

Loading Likes...

14 thoughts on “It’s Inevitable?

  1. Pickle Rick

    “Permission” will come when the left crash the economy on purpose. Trumpism isn’t winning the culture war, or the demographic war, so when the left wins the 2024 election the left will sabotage the economy. Only then will Joe Sixpack finally decide that he’s had enough. Revolution doesn’t happen in prosperity. The 1789, 1917, 1918-1919 and 1933 (French, Russian, German and German) all occurred in economic collapse or a combined economic/military collapse, which led to the political collapse.

  2. Maus

    Why Sev, I’m no Uban II, but the matter of permission is easy: Deus vult! The real issue is, as you’ve pointed out previously, who will be our Robert E. Lee and his Jefferson Davis? Sadly, leadership is sorely lacking. Thankfully set-piece battles have been effectively replaced by asymmetric guerrilla warfare; so two or three capable lt. colonels well-versed in supply-chain logistics could support the handful of field captains necessary to get things started (hypothetically speaking). What do you suppose will be the casus belli that prompts Ft. Sumter 2.0?

    1. Severian Post author

      I think Pickle Rick has it covered. But I don’t think there’ll be a Ft. Sumter 2.0. My guess is something like Northern Ireland 2.0 — lots of semi-normal areas held down by an occupying power, lots of “Indian country” where the occupier doesn’t go except in large force. We’re too far gone for widespread rebellion. Isolated militia groups carrying out pinprick strikes, then getting droned.

      1. Pickle Rick

        I’m more of a “Yugoslavia on steroids” scenario. First, the ability of the Chair Force to conduct “war” by airpower or drones alone didn’t work in Durka Durka Stan (or Iraq/Somalia/Vietnam) and it is Texas sized, with a population smaller than half of that state. Scale up “Indian country” to the entire continental US, and a population that’s a bit more advanced than goat fucking retards, and that quickly shows that drone war isn’t feasible for very long. Especially if you’re trying to build them in a intensified civil breakdown rather than a secure country at peace. Besides, the components for that stuff is bottlenecked in a very few physical places, exquisitely vulnerable to disruption, and it’s not like Grumman and Rayethon can crank those things out like Fords on the assembly line even in perfect conditions. The conditions to allow either side to conduct high technology warfare will cease to exist. It will devolve very quickly into manpower intensive old school warfare, because the infrastructure to support 4th generation warfare won’t be capable to sustain it for long in civil breakdowns.

        Second factor is the Troubles were conducted with restraint by the Queen’s government side, who had to nominally care about world opinion. Even the Provos had to back off killing babies once in a while, and they could fuck off back across to the Potato Republic if they needed a break. Not an option if we decide to do the dance here. Do you have any illusions about the current crop of lefties practicing restraint if it gets to open violent confrontations? We’re just about ready to divide up into Serb vs Bosnian vs Croat vs Macedonian. Think there’s not enough Southerners who recall 150 years of enmities to turn every formerly white city like Atlanta into Sarajevo, or would you be taking bets that Jamal and Tre would be eating each other inside a week after the Piggly Wiggly runs out of malt liquor and canned food?

        1. Publius

          On top of this, you’ve got the reality that the U.S. Military will be highly compromised in any attempt to make war upon the civilian population. It was in 1861, it will be more so now. Back then, North and South were discreet entities you could build standing armies off of. But when the exurbs make war upon New York City, it’s going to be a different animal.

          We shall see.

  3. kirkforlatt

    Kinda sorta off-topic, but Sev’s remark caught my attention:
    “If he’s still alive, the Turner Diaries guy must be frantically cranking out a sequel. He’d make millions.”

    I think Wm Pierce, who wrote the Turner Diaries, is indeed currently dead. But I wonder how many of y’all have read the late Harold Covington’s Northwest Front novels. Covington, the cranky old misanthrope, wan’t a great writer but he WAS a very good storyteller. I dare you to read those books and not get that faraway stare —“Yeah, that would be great….” The vibe is something akin to what you’d get if Jack Reacher were a part of our thing.

    The books are available sporadically online if you search for them. The sites hosting them get shut down, they move somewhere else, and so on. Wintertime is a good season to do lots of reading. Until we get gulag-ed.

  4. contrariandutchman

    You dont need leaders to have a (civil) war. Indeed, usuallyt takes having great leaders to -avoid- major (civil) war.

    An Otto von Bismarck could for 2 generations avoid major war in Europe, and by extension the world, while also mostly keeping the peace at home despite severe social stresses in a rapidly industrializing and urbanizing society with deep religious divisions. Lesser men then fumbled their way into a massive war and revolutions they didnt want yet didnt know how to avoid.

    The French revolution and following civil war would have been avoided had Louis XVI been a strong and able leader, but he wasnt and unrest spun out of control. Similarly Russia where Tsar Alexander III’s headstrong and rigid autocracy quelled social unrest that had seen the death of his reformer father and kept Russia out of major wars. The vacillating of Nicholas II then paved the way for Russia to blunder into wars it could not win while stoking social unrest (inevitable in a society that is so rapdidly industrializing and urbanizing) to the point of revolution.

    In the US similarly lack of leaders will not avoid the war but contribute to if not cause it. Had Trump been a great leader he might have avoided war, but he isnt and there is nobody I can think of who might defuse the situation from here. Just about everybody likely to succeed Trump as president looks set to fan the flames instead.

    Spain in 1936 expected war as well, both sides thought the one to lose the elections would go to the gun and had begun preparations for that. Yet Spain 1936 lacked widely acceptable leaders, and again this likely contributed to civil war as nobody could halt the slide. And indeed, cometh the hour…, leadership of both sides was largely taken up by comparative nobodies, lots of mid-ranking army officers, some mid-ranking union men and activists etc.

    And lets not forget that before the US civil war Robert Lee was noted as a competent officer but he had never commanded anything larger then a regiment, and that not even in battle. The civil war allowed his talent as a general to show, without it he would have remained a colonel, respected by his fellow officers but forgotten to history. Today there are no doubt men in the US who similarly have talents that can only be revealed when the hour has arrived.

    So, not sure this is encouraging or discouraging, but history will let you know when you have permission to rush the field.

  5. Skedastic Racket

    I’m of the opinion that there will be a collapse first. And if the collapse is severe enough, I don’t know that enough people will survive to make a war necessary. Not in the sense of left vs our types anyway.
    So then, it seems that war will happen only under a partial collapse, in which case why couldn’t it be started by the other side rushing the field?
    I saw an article suggesting that the economy would be crashed if Trump was not prevented from being re elected, something like that could be done and then the left might try to take advantage of the discontent and lead the charge.

  6. MBlanc46

    Something is going to happen. That’s certain. Because something always happens. Until the heat death of the universe, anyway, which is probably beyond our frame of reference. I’ll venture a guess that whatever happens won’t be good. As Skedastic Racket, above, says, it will probably be an economic collapse. Exactly when, and how severe, who knows? And how the masses will react remains to be seen. One more stab at prediction: Middle-class life in the West will very likely be over.

  7. Pingback: How It All Ends | Rotten Chestnuts

  8. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 11/17/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

Comments are closed.