I think one of the biggest things preventing civil war , which was only mentioned in passing in this article is the age profile of society . During the Iranian revolution the average age of the population was comically young to our perspective at 17 . Fundamentally, we don’t even know if a population with an average age of 42 ( and getting older) is even capable of large scale civil unrest .
Great article. Another angle to consider is the sheer technological dominance of a modern surveillance state in terms of how it can counter clandestine organisation of the type used successfully by insurgent forces in the post-WW2 era. To take just one dimension of this: if you look at how greatly the movements of the IRA were constrained by a basic system of centralised vehicle tracking by the end of the Troubles, compared to how things were at the beginning of that conflict, you begin to get an idea of how much more difficult it would be for an upstart to act in a modern environment with 10x the level of passive surveillance, and automated tools that flag unusual behaviour patterns, just for a start. The operational barriers to entry for a Western insurgent are much higher, as are the chances of ultimately being caught, and permanently imprisoned, even if successful. This higher bar combined with more domesticated, more specialised populations, as described above, leads to zero takers for serious terrorist vigilantism so far, across the West.
However, I don't think it's entirely impossible that we will ultimately see real, major political change following a transformative period of at first low-level conflict that alters the social, psychological and economic conditions that you describe as precluding this. I think the most hopeful evidence for an eventual total shift are the recent pogroms (meaning "effective population displacement") in Northern Ireland, which provide a straightforward blueprint for exercising political power that circumvents the power of the state. I can imagine several ways that the techniques there could begin to spread and to change.
A large faction of western populations is now formed by people from effectively pre modern/liberal societies who have kept the mores of those societies without accepting the assumptions of western societies stated here. In response to the population shift there is a reversion in part of the native population to an earlier form of tribalism. I find the author's conclusions that modernity/liberalism precludes some forms of political violence but not the assumption that modernity/liberalism in a population cannot and is not being rolled back. I have 2 sons under 3. The urge to violence is inate and easily exposed.
Review; Bourgeois, with Libertarian roots. Middle aged, intellectual, no experience, and detached from physical contact with the ugly realities that are making this happen. Academic background and a purely historian’s or economics view. Quite bloodless and objective but surface and not deep. The analysis is correct about mass movements but they belong to the age of mass media, not the bazaar of 2 way and many conversations that now exists.
This basically says Keep Calm because nothing can happen. That’s entirely possible, but you’ll go extinct. Slowly then very fast. You’re past slowly.
What is missing is organization, leadership and elite defections. All the conditions are present including no way out *especially for young white men*. OTOH what’s really in their way? Because it’s not the military and it’s not the police. What’s in the way are aging, Bloodless Boomer pensioners voting for a quiet end. That’s not enough.
(On America enforcing its will with force to maintain globalism or the rule of Brussels, Whitehall, Paris on their unwilling subjects… no.
That’s delusional. Trump would never give that order and the American military and police (who are the same people btw) would not execute it. No. No American President would or could give that order, the people would not do it, the Military wouldn’t either. That’s… ? 1945 redux? No. That America doesn’t exist, not off Bluesky anyway. Yes I am an American, Veteran, and family police or veterans. We’re not going to invade Europe to save the EU from their own people.).
Who’s the Champion of Boomer Liberalism? What natives are his army? The Browns are good for a riot, not a fight by the way. In no way do they stand and fight. One thing to beat, rape and burn the helpless, fighting men another. As mass (… mass in war by the way is now effects not numbers, in the physical real battlefield dispersion is a new principle of war just not “officially doctrine” yet) .. as mass movements are impossible it’s not “mass movements” it’s how many do they have that will fight vs how many do you have that will fight? Batistia in Cuba, the Afghan government vs Taliban fell to small, rapid columns that were outnumbered. Mosul had 30,000 Iraqi troops that fled before 800 ISIS. The common element is despite greater numbers in men, resources they were rotted out from within and especially rotted, cowardly or absent leadership.
That common element of being utterly hollow certainly applies elsewhere. Look around.
& a mediocre organizer can certainly get 800 from 100,000 (the protest size mentioned). Can Burnham-Batista or Emperor Macron find 800 who will stand and kill their own? In Belfast it was hardly a secret who taught and supported those young Prots , and those weren’t riots but targeted raids. Some hundreds of young prots joined gladly by a few dozen Catholics. That’s why police were flown in from the UK to Belfast.
There may be nothing standing for European nations but there’s nothing in the way of any young men that would.
"Individuals adopt cultural trends largely out of the conviction that doing so will elevate their own status. If internal status within a group and external status outside of it are in competition, internal status can only be preferred if the group is powerful enough that it is better to be a bigger fish in that smaller pond." Not sure what to make of this. Do people really care that much about status? Guess they do. The last shall be the first anyway.
I think one of the biggest things preventing civil war , which was only mentioned in passing in this article is the age profile of society . During the Iranian revolution the average age of the population was comically young to our perspective at 17 . Fundamentally, we don’t even know if a population with an average age of 42 ( and getting older) is even capable of large scale civil unrest .
Great article. Another angle to consider is the sheer technological dominance of a modern surveillance state in terms of how it can counter clandestine organisation of the type used successfully by insurgent forces in the post-WW2 era. To take just one dimension of this: if you look at how greatly the movements of the IRA were constrained by a basic system of centralised vehicle tracking by the end of the Troubles, compared to how things were at the beginning of that conflict, you begin to get an idea of how much more difficult it would be for an upstart to act in a modern environment with 10x the level of passive surveillance, and automated tools that flag unusual behaviour patterns, just for a start. The operational barriers to entry for a Western insurgent are much higher, as are the chances of ultimately being caught, and permanently imprisoned, even if successful. This higher bar combined with more domesticated, more specialised populations, as described above, leads to zero takers for serious terrorist vigilantism so far, across the West.
However, I don't think it's entirely impossible that we will ultimately see real, major political change following a transformative period of at first low-level conflict that alters the social, psychological and economic conditions that you describe as precluding this. I think the most hopeful evidence for an eventual total shift are the recent pogroms (meaning "effective population displacement") in Northern Ireland, which provide a straightforward blueprint for exercising political power that circumvents the power of the state. I can imagine several ways that the techniques there could begin to spread and to change.
Looking forward to reading part 2!
A large faction of western populations is now formed by people from effectively pre modern/liberal societies who have kept the mores of those societies without accepting the assumptions of western societies stated here. In response to the population shift there is a reversion in part of the native population to an earlier form of tribalism. I find the author's conclusions that modernity/liberalism precludes some forms of political violence but not the assumption that modernity/liberalism in a population cannot and is not being rolled back. I have 2 sons under 3. The urge to violence is inate and easily exposed.
Incredible piece of writing and research by Pimlico Journal. A genuinely thought-provoking read.
At this stage, peoples that don't tribaliz will get destroyed by peoples that do.
Review; Bourgeois, with Libertarian roots. Middle aged, intellectual, no experience, and detached from physical contact with the ugly realities that are making this happen. Academic background and a purely historian’s or economics view. Quite bloodless and objective but surface and not deep. The analysis is correct about mass movements but they belong to the age of mass media, not the bazaar of 2 way and many conversations that now exists.
This basically says Keep Calm because nothing can happen. That’s entirely possible, but you’ll go extinct. Slowly then very fast. You’re past slowly.
What is missing is organization, leadership and elite defections. All the conditions are present including no way out *especially for young white men*. OTOH what’s really in their way? Because it’s not the military and it’s not the police. What’s in the way are aging, Bloodless Boomer pensioners voting for a quiet end. That’s not enough.
(On America enforcing its will with force to maintain globalism or the rule of Brussels, Whitehall, Paris on their unwilling subjects… no.
That’s delusional. Trump would never give that order and the American military and police (who are the same people btw) would not execute it. No. No American President would or could give that order, the people would not do it, the Military wouldn’t either. That’s… ? 1945 redux? No. That America doesn’t exist, not off Bluesky anyway. Yes I am an American, Veteran, and family police or veterans. We’re not going to invade Europe to save the EU from their own people.).
Who’s the Champion of Boomer Liberalism? What natives are his army? The Browns are good for a riot, not a fight by the way. In no way do they stand and fight. One thing to beat, rape and burn the helpless, fighting men another. As mass (… mass in war by the way is now effects not numbers, in the physical real battlefield dispersion is a new principle of war just not “officially doctrine” yet) .. as mass movements are impossible it’s not “mass movements” it’s how many do they have that will fight vs how many do you have that will fight? Batistia in Cuba, the Afghan government vs Taliban fell to small, rapid columns that were outnumbered. Mosul had 30,000 Iraqi troops that fled before 800 ISIS. The common element is despite greater numbers in men, resources they were rotted out from within and especially rotted, cowardly or absent leadership.
That common element of being utterly hollow certainly applies elsewhere. Look around.
& a mediocre organizer can certainly get 800 from 100,000 (the protest size mentioned). Can Burnham-Batista or Emperor Macron find 800 who will stand and kill their own? In Belfast it was hardly a secret who taught and supported those young Prots , and those weren’t riots but targeted raids. Some hundreds of young prots joined gladly by a few dozen Catholics. That’s why police were flown in from the UK to Belfast.
There may be nothing standing for European nations but there’s nothing in the way of any young men that would.
Sorry to be harsh but we’re discussing war, and survival.
"Individuals adopt cultural trends largely out of the conviction that doing so will elevate their own status. If internal status within a group and external status outside of it are in competition, internal status can only be preferred if the group is powerful enough that it is better to be a bigger fish in that smaller pond." Not sure what to make of this. Do people really care that much about status? Guess they do. The last shall be the first anyway.
Insh'Allah! 😇