A Gates of Vienna reader sends these observations about the vicious culture war currently raging in the USA, which he thinks may evolve into a full-on civil war.
Is America heading towards a second Civil War?
A violent outbreak of civil war usually arises as the final stage of a constantly escalating series of rhetorical accusations between two polarized and irreconcilable sides. We are seeing this today in the confrontation between Republicans and Democrats.
In a nutshell, the Democrats consider the Republicans to be “Nazis”. And because the Republicans are “Nazis”, the Democrats refuse to listen to anything they say. Instead, the Democrats only listen to themselves, and those Democrats who are loudest and most aggressive in their leftist agenda keep pushing all the Democrats farther and farther leftwards, in a repeating cycle of positive feedback (self-reinforcement).
The Democrats consider traditional white conservative Christian Republicans to be a dangerous enemy who are preventing the spread of liberal “progressivism” throughout America. But the Democrats still do not dare to call the Republicans “Nazis” outright. Instead, they use the politically correct terms “racists”, “fascists” and “nationalists”.
The Democrats characterize the Republicans as “white supremacists, Christian bigots, and male chauvinists”. Their ultimate goal is to establish a utopian one-world government where whites do not dominate. To accomplish this democratically, without open warfare, they have thrown open America’s borders, and invited all of the Third World to enter America (primarily Latinos, Africans, and Muslims), where they will eventually be able to outvote the Republicans and make them a permanent minority.
The Democrats have a fixed ideology that is really a religious dogma. They consider white conservatives to be evil (what the Communists used to call “reactionaries who cannot be re-educated”). Democrats refuse to believe that there is any genetic component to human intelligence, so that every human being is a potential genius as long as he is educated by the Democrats. Accordingly, when America becomes majority non-white, and all those non-whites have been educated by the Democrats, then America will lead the rest of the world into becoming a global utopia.
I do not see how America can survive intact when Democrats become the permanent majority. The Republicans will probably secede, and form a new nation in America’s heartland, leaving both coasts and the Mexican border in the hands of the Democrats.
I don’t think it would be a good idea to leave all coastal areas. A republican nation must absolutely have accsess to the oceans.
Exactly, you can not be a powerful nation without a seaboard, I’ll take the original 13 colonies
When Virginia splits up into Northern Virginia (The Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy) and the rest of the Commonwealth (The Real Virginia), I hope we get the Peninsula, because we really need Norfolk, Newport News, and Hampton Roads. That would make us a significant naval power in the New World Disorder.
I would suggest an alternate conclusion, where both parties eventually end up in a break-up stage, and we end up with four to six political parties….ranging from 5-percent to 30-percent of the general public each. Presently, the Democrats are the most likely (after the 2020 election) to break up into at least two camps. But the GOP is not that far behind them.
Extrapolations such as this are signs of an impending collapse. History teaches us that the collapse of Empires, cultures and tribal groupings is the product of multiple cascading stress factors – politico-economic, demographic and socio-cultural.
Other factors such as structural deficits, inherent social antagonisms, and malignant political dynamics make complex societies vulnerable to extreme ideological belief systems that serve as the catalysts rather than as unique triggers for the collapse.
End times always see the rise of fanatical anarchic organisations and counterintuitive & irrational ideologies. Thus, if you wish to see where we stand today just look around and you will find Extinction Rebellion, Antifa, Greens & Vegans, ISIS, Hope not Hate (more the reverse), the reproductive retrogressives of the LBGT alphabet soup collective and the Pathological Altruists of Europe who gleefully welcome alien invaders who are solely intent on replacing them.
I do wonder what sort of Phoenix will rise out of the ashes of that mess of human pottage, for ashes they will most certainly become.
If there will be a war, it will be win by democrats, because, at the brink of these times, the US president will be a democrat nominee and no republican civilian with rifles and guns will compete with tanks and missiles.
And another question that I would like to rise. If it happens, can we conclude that democracy is not so good as it highlighted?
You’re assuming the American military will fire on its own people.
I don’t believe the Afghans had tanks or missiles or aircraft yet they are still there controlling more land than they did on 9-11. Don’t even get me started on the workshop weaponry American ingenuity would bring to the table.
There won’t be any secession. Democrats are parasitic and cannot survive without productive conservative keepers. If the producers seceded, the parasitic consumers would try to follow them.
We used to have an effective system for keeping the parasite load in check: closed borders, housing projects, stuff like that. The parasites complained relentlessly, of course, but they do that no matter what. The old ways worked. The new ways, with open borders and housing vouchers, is only creating more suffering in society. The parasites must be controlled or they will kill the host nation.
The dems don´t know that are parasitic.
A secession would be the best solution. There are good example of countries which made secessions, without any civil war and no fight. The czeckslovak republic which ended in 2 different and separate states, for example. But that could not be an applicable case to an eventual (U)S secession, because there are no either republican states or democrat states (apart from commieformia).
That bit about secession sounds pretty good. I think I’ll get a U-Haul ready.
America is a golden age: Poor people have problems with obesity, we have abundant electrical power, we have easy access to transportation, we flush our toilets with potable water, etc.
It would be a shame if screwed up and threw it all away.
I think they would keep the Gulf coast, at least the Texas portions and at least part of the Great Lakes. Both Ohio and Michigan are red to purple for the moment.
“I do not see how America can survive intact when Democrats become the permanent majority. The Republicans will probably secede, and form a new nation in America’s heartland, leaving both coasts and the Mexican border in the hands of the Democrats.”
Congressman and Democrat Eric Swalwell threatened recently to use nuclear weapons against Americans who would not turn in the equivalent of the 1776 Musket, their AR-15’s so what do you think the emerging Communist/Islamo-Fascist Party’s response will be in a secessionist movement if the Democrats control our military?
I like to think that our military would tell the dems “screw you” and fire on Washington instead. The capital and capitol can be rebuilt.
The privates might, but the generals are in the bag for the Left. The personnel above the rank of major are not to be trusted.
Couple of excellent observations indeed. Whats struck a chord is this one:
They consider white conservatives to be evil (what the Communists used to call “reactionaries who cannot be re-educated”).
Exactly what it is. The new Left is using slightly different verbiage but that’s what they mean.
… and a slightly “southern” view if I may: majority of the guns and other weaponry is here in the South. We are no snowflakes and ranges are full every single day of our week.
Hmm. Bring it on.
Yes, but what is the white birth replacement rate?
This is a loaded question. A positive replacement rate does not always indicate a prosperous society. Calhoun’s rat study showed that the population would swell until it met the limits of space and resources, then the replacement rate would drop before leveling-out and maintaining for as long as space and resources remained constant. We can infer that all social animals follow similar rules. In fact, they must follow similar rules or they would starve themselves out of existence.
We don’t need more people. We cannot have infinite growth on our finite planet. What we need is higher quality of people, better suited to the needs of the whole society. Right now, our so-called “elites” are mostly self-serving garbage who cannot survive outside the “endless growth” model.
Sorry, but you totally misrepresent the Calhoun study, which was actually mice and not rats. You can read an extensive account here:
The surprising finding of the study was that even with unlimited space and resources, the population declined and then disappeared. They did not reach the limits of space and resources; they disappeared long before any such limits were reached.
The interpretation was that in the absence of natural selection, harmful mutations and gene variations competed on an equal basis with beneficial genes and eventually overwhelmed them. In other words, the mice lost their instincts for having and nurturing young, and so stopped producing babies.
A later variation of the Mouse Utopia experiment showed that if the misfits were culled out, and only the genetically fit mice were left in, the colony would prosper.
The implication is that with technology advances making food and shelter available to virtually everyone, and especially the welfare state, our societies will decline in birth rate and intelligence even without immigration…which speeds the process, no doubt.
Calhoun did studies with rats but his famous one was the “mouse utopia” experiment. When RonaldB raised it here, probably a couple of years ago, I looked into it as best I could and came to the conclusion that the experiment was flawed for several reasons only two of which I can now remember.
Firstly, it wasn’t so much a utopia as a well appointed concentration camp. Being denied freedom of movement, as they would have in the wild, it is no wonder the wee, timorous beasties went mad. The overpopulation certainly happened but there is no reason to believe that it was the critical factor in their demise.
Secondly, if it could be applied to humans then Hong Kong would be a wasteland by now rather than a thriving economic powerhouse.
Oh, I didn’t notice RonaldB’s reply before commenting. I would add three things in response to his comment.
1. The harmful mutations theory was only AN interpretation not THE interpretation.
2. I never came across a rerun in which the unfit were culled. Perhaps I’ll find it in the link Ronald has provided.
3. I studied the parallel data between the mice and the British population from the 19th century to the present (can’t remember the name of the professor who produced it) and found no meaningful correlation.
As an example, I remember one data point, the 1919 census which duly showed a population drop, matching the mice data, but then I realised that 1919 was immediately after the Great Carnage and the Spanish flu epidemic.
Thank you for looking into the question. It can only be beneficial for a questioning approach for any claim.
In the book
At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future
Dutton and Woodley go into a detailed analysis of the relationship between birth rates, population decline, intelligence, and the onset of technology and the reduction of Darwinian stress.
Your question as to the replication of the experiment is a fair one, especially concerning the effect of culling the unfit mice to maintain a reproductive birth rate. In fact, I asked Dutton this directly in a comment on a video of his, and he replied that the experiment had actually been carried out subsequent to the original Mouse Utopia experiment. He gave no citations though. This is the closest I could find:
Of Mice and Men: Empirical Support for the
Population-Based Social Epistasis Amplification
Model (a Comment on Kalbassi et al., 2017)
I believe you fell into the same trap as did the previous comment, assuming that it was the confinement and overpopulation that caused the decline. In fact, the analysis by Woodley showed that the decline appeared before any overcrowding took place.
Woodley and Dutton attempt to show, in “At Our Wits End” is that in any civilization, the inherited intelligence and birth rate goes down once the civilization advances to a certain level of technology and comfort.
The implication, if they’re correct, is very clear: our civilization and likely our population, will decline unless there is some intervention to maintain genetic fitness, intellectual, character, and physical, in the population.
Let me directly address your comment on Hong Kong. I looked up the fertility rate for Hong Kong, and it is 1.2. The minimum birth rate for simply replacement is at least 2.1. So, the prosperous, dynamic Hong Kong without immigration, will simply die out in a few generations.
Thanks Ronald. I will pay this proper attention tomorrow but I will just raise one point now before I turn in. In the details for the book on Amazon I see it claims that intelligence was increasing until the start of the industrial revolution and has been declining ever since. How do they know? Intelligence has only been measurable since around 1920 and as I understand it IQ levels have been rising consistently until recently when they started to drop off.
It sounds as though they started with the theory and assumed that the data must be following in line. I find it hard to believe that anyone could make such a basic mistake so I expect it is not as it looks…mind you the Amazon blurb seems fairly clear.
They deal with all these questions extensively in “At our Wit’s End”
To answer your two questions, they have a set of direct and indirect measures of innate intelligence with can be used to measure intelligence prior to the development of the written IQ tests. The best example is reaction time, which has been measured beginning with Frances Galton in the 1860s. Reaction time has a moderate, but solid relationship with innate intelligence. They also use other measures, such as the number of complex words in popular literature.
As far as intelligence rising until recently, you’re referring to the Flynn Effect. They show the Flynn Effect is not related to inherited intelligence, but instead related to the general environment. But, inherited intelligence sets a ceiling on how high the Flynn effect can go, and that ceiling was reached in the 1990s. So, inherited intelligence has been going down since before the 1900s, which the intelligence measured on composite IQ scores has gone up until the last few decades. For more detail, you’ll do best reading the book.
Thanks Ronald. How pleasant to be able to disagree, confident that the discussion won’t descend into a firefight after a couple of exchanges.
Firstly to respond to your latest post, I do not put much credence in Galton’s researches. I doubt that his stopwatch could have been very accurate in the 1860’s and you yourself say that reaction time has only a moderate relationship to intelligence. I also doubt his objectivity (I believe double-blind type techniques were not thought of then). As an example of his way of working, he thought he had established some objective knowledge about the geographic incidence of beauty by noting his subjective appraisal of women he saw in the streets (London came out top).
But that doesn’t take us back to the start of the industrial revolution. The only measure you give for those times is the incidence of complex words in popular literature. I would suggest that is likely only a measure of the increased literacy which we know took place during that time.
As for the Flynn effect and its apparent reverse, I take no issue with that. I note it is a disputed area though…one suggested explanation for the reverse is greater air pollution. I don’t know how that could be tested.
To move back to my first two posts. The first was in response to John’s interpretation of the mousey tragedy, the overcrowding one which has gone round the world, which I was arguing against. With regard to that interpretation I think the current replacement rate in Hong Kong is irrelevant. In the second half of the last century there was a rapid increase in population leading to unheard of levels of population density (correct me if I am wrong about that) but I never heard any suggestion of social and even biological breakdown.
I favour the confinement interpretation separate from the overcrowding one, being the simplest, but I am not about to die in a ditch over it. To my mind the grotesque limitations on the mice’s instinctive behaviours is on a par with those baby monkeys given a terry cloth “mother” complete with a milk supply which, surprise surprise, produced neurotic and non-viable adults.
My second post was in response to your “build up of harmful mutations” interpretation:
1. So when challenged Dutton couldn’t produce a reference for the rerun with culling but still insisted it had taken place. Hmm…not encouraging. The paper by Sarraf and Woodley is very densely written and I struggled to be sure what they were saying. I think I saw a bit about proposing carrying out such a rerun some time in the future.
2. You didn’t respond to my main point that the claimed parallel between the mice and the population of Britain since the 19th century was not borne out by the census data (it was by Charlton who has collaborated with Woodley and Dutton I believe).
Someone (even) cleverer than us once said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. If the data doesn’t support it then it’s junk”. I do not say the theory is junk, only that on the basis of my admittedly superficial investigation I cannot distinguish it from junk. I will not be an early adopter, nor will I be buying the book. Nevertheless I will keep an eye out for future developments such as properly designed, peer reviewed experiments and reviews of the book by other academics in the field.
I do actually suspect that there may be something in the water or in the air or in the culture or even in the genes which accounts for such unintelligent beliefs that are current today, the most extreme ones being that a castrated man is a woman and that Islam is a religion of peace.
I admit I would like it if Dutton provided a citation for the replication study in which the mutant mice were culled out and the genetically fit mice continued to reproduce within the same environment as the mouse utopia experiment. As you say, data wins.
You said that your examination of the study of the British population did not have a correlation with the mouse utopia results. I don’t have enough information to comment on that. “At Our Wit’s End” does cite a steady decline in measured IQ measures that are heritable since the written IQ scores were kept. You don’t even need the backup of the mouse utopia interpretation for that.
As far as a stressed out environment, Sweden has a very low population density and a birth rate of 1.85 per female, well below replacement rate. By the way, I would not allow Swedes to immigrate to the US once their utopian experiment in open migration collapses. As illustrated by the anti-American Congressman Omar, the Swedes tend to bring in Somalis and other Africans. Let them stay in Sweden. The Swedes, I mean. The Africans, Syrians, Afghanis, etc should go back to Africa, Syria, Afghanistan, or wherever.
“A positive replacement rate does not always indicate a prosperous society”. totally agree, it is not the quantity but the quality, which makes the difference.
It is said that there are only two groups expanding today. Muslims and Conservative Christians. The South will not be the area with negative population growth.
The Democrats started the last civil war and lost. Now, true to form they are pushing towards a second.
Aside from acknowledging all of the thought terminating cliches of the Globalist Collective death cult refered to as Democrats, Leftists, the author is living in some alternate reality.
Very few if any have been joining the ranks of the left over the last three years. In fact I see them as becoming a minority in America. Albeit a very well funded and vocal minority who use the mainstream media as their Fifth Column. They can only inhabit the Commanding Heights of major cities where most murders involving firearms occur.
What the author and some refer to as an escalating civil war is only the continuation of the culture war that was fomented in the 1960s after they murdered JFK, his brother and Dr. Martin Luther King.
There will never be another civil war in America ever again. In order for that to even happen the leaders of each state would be building common alliances with each other against other states. This isn’t happening anywhere nor will it ever happen.
But we may see an uprising by the millions of foreign nationals, mostly fighting age males, that have been imported to America over the last five years for the express purpose of overthrowing this current form of Constitutional Republic. Followed maybe by millions of Communist Chinese, Venezuela, the Islamic Republic of Iran to aid such an overthrow. Maybe even Mexico would join in. War can always happen but another “civil” war is highly unlikely.
Think Balkans on steroids, where your race, religion and political affiliation will be your uniform. Diversity/Forced 3rd world Multiculturalism = Balkanization = Massive Bloodshed, as history has demonstrated time and time again, yet we in the so called modern age think we are above this, well human nature says otherwise and one way or another, nature always wins over good intentions, politics and wishful thinking.
It might be beneficial to reflect on what actually caused the first Civil War. When the Civil War was started, the Confederate states had already successfully and peacefully seceded from the US. What actually drove the Civil War was the determination of Lincoln to force the Confederate states back into the Union under the control of the national government. Unfortunately, the situation is not 100% unambiguous, as it was the Confederacy that first attacked a Union installation, a move as stupid or stupider than anything in modern or ancient history that comes to mind.
The issue motivating the Confederate split, nationalism versus confederation, was analogous to, but not the same as, the prime issue today: globalism versus nationhood. Under the Hamiltonian nationalism pushed so forcefully by Lincoln, the nation was the primary political unit. The states did not exist as a separate entity, but only derived their existence from the mandate of the national government. The Confederate states saw each state as an independent government, united only by a voluntary delegation of certain powers, such as a common defense, to the national government. The Confederate states seceded when it appeared they were fighting a never-ending battle to maintain their autonomy and identity within the federation (Union).
Analogously, globalism today sees national boundaries as being only administrative units of convenience, with everyone in the world having a claim on particular territory and resources. Nationalists see their country as an integral whole, with the right to control its internal policies, its relations with other countries, and its cultural identity. Like the Lincoln nation, the globalists would be happy to use military force to coerce individual nations into following the policies dictated by the central, globalist authority. The only constraint on the use of globalist force is the actual military situation, and the opportunity for aggression. The irreversible blunder by Confederate President Davis was he gave Lincoln the opportunity to rally the North in a military invasion of the South, using the quite-valid justification of the attack on Fort Sumter.
If nations dictate their internal policies, there is no reason to enforce homogeneous purity. An autonomous nation could restrict the voting to property owners, or to Christians. Or could have disproportional representation for people of different origins. In the specific case I’m thinking of, a nation would give the predominant electoral power to people who would favor small government and the protection of property rights. Those with a different political philosophy could either not enter, or could move to another country. Property owners who wished to move to a socialist nation would have a far better chance of getting a fair value for their property in the country that respected property rights, than would citizens of a socialist country who wished to move to a country respecting property rights.
It’s certainly not 100% ambiguous.
There were important political calculations: Any territory which became a slave state would also count 3/5 of its slave population for the purposes of apportionment, which in conjunction with the US financial industry in the North being extremely heavily invested in the slave economy would have rapidly diluted the power of the North in general and the abolitionists in particular.
The related pre-Civil War border fighting was also a factor, and it was inflamed by abolitionist …. activists like John Brown who went to Kansas to help tip the balance as well as their proslavery counterparts.
That kind of disorder cannot be tolerated by any government for very long.
I’m giving into my inclination to debate Civil War issues, since the era contains so many parallels and actual precedents for the present.
Once the Confederate States broke away, the issue of slave versus free state became moot. The majority of slave-state votes were out of the Congress and there was no chance at all that any more states would be admitted to the union that were slave states.
Besides, the South didn’t seceded to preserve slavery. Prior to, say, 1840, there were more emancipation societies in the South than in the north. They simply weren’t the bomb-throwing abolition variety. They were focused on freeing slaves and integrating them in an orderly manner, as opposed to the Northern abolitionists who wanted to free slaves en mass and ship them to Africa.
Some abolitionists favored secession, because as the Confederate States were not part of the US, the northern states were not bound by the Dred Scott decision to return runaway slaves.
The ambiguity I speak of is that I think the Confederacy should have been allowed to exist as a separate country. I can’t totally fault Lincoln since Jefferson Davis initiated the attack on Fort Sumter, a US installation. The US was perfectly within its rights to take the attack as an act of war. I don’t like it, but there you are. The invasion and conquest of the South was highly disproportionate, but once you initiate a war, you can’t always predict the result. I wish the current war hawks in the cabinet would take that lesson to heart.
In fact, Jefferson Davis was warned of the consequences, but went ahead. Robert Toombs, a genius drunk and total supporter of the Confederacy, told Davis to his face if he attacked Fort Sumter, it would end the Confederacy.
A similar escenario might happen here in Europe, I’m germand and married an Icelandic man two years ago, we live in Akureyri and while Iceland is largely dominated by lunatic left thinking and rife with feminism and flawed notions of equality the propaganda and the indoctrination are more theoretical than practical, in Germany on contrary those ideologies have translated into the importation of thousands of feral analphabets that commit crimes, terrorize the native population and add an unbearable burden to the health and educative systems. Iceland is for now mad only in papers, one rarely sees muslims here, most migrants are poles, czech, brits and they mingle very well with the locals, crime is something very, very rare here. But things are very different in Germany and other nations in western Europe, I think that if the cancerous left takes over many germans will migrate to Western Europe, my brother was working in Hungary for 6 months and loved the place, the people and the love they have for their land and told me he met a big community of Germans, French, Swedish expats in Budapest and Pecs .
I think US should start allowing Europeans to start migrating to the US again.
This analysis seems convincing to me about what would happen in case of (leftist) federal government tyranny, and consequent rebellion.
The news is good for the rebels!
Robert A Heinlein, in “Friday” (1982), predicted the fragmenting of the US. For what it’s worth, he was right about the mobile ‘phone! (in the ’40s, I think.)
Heinlein was one of my favorite authors. I read all his books multiple times. Read “Farnham’s Freehold” for another eye opener from RAH. BTW, I just bought the massive 2-vol biography of Heinlein. If you’re a fan, you’ll love it. An amazing piece of research. Speaking of predictions, The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail, predicts the migrant invasion of France. He predicted an armada of Hindus though.