Culper insists on the mot juste.
I hate using the words “civil war” and “collapse”, because they’re not specific. Whenever I read the words “societal collapse” or “economic collapse”, I wonder: collapse to what level? 100% collapse? 50% collapse? (Even a 25% collapse in employment and living standards is going to cause significant problems.) One could argue that we’re witnessing a societal collapse right now — a collapse of established, normative sociopolitical behavior and attitudes. It might be more accurate and specific to say that we’ve entered into a period of societal decline, but it only goes to show just how vague the word “collapse” actually is. The collapse of the Roman Empire lasted for centuries, and we only know that because we can read the history. I wonder if those living in any given 50 year period of that collapse understood that collapse was occurring. The same can be said of civil war. Will states be fighting each other in the Second Civil War? Is the North invading the South again? Will we be battling for control over Washington D.C.? What, exactly, is meant by the term civil war?
Now, you may be thinking, Well, that’s just a semantic game. Everyone knows what a civil war is. This may work for a cursory understanding of where we’re headed, but in intelligence we deal with specifics. The commander needs to know the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the situation. You don’t prepare for a civil war, you don’t prepare for an electromagnetic pulse, you don’t prepare for economic collapse. You prepare for the effects of these events. And if we’re not deliberate with our understanding of these threats and their second- and third-order effects, then we’re not truly prepared.
Predicting the future is hard, especially when we define our terms and arrange our expectations in reference to definitions and historical conditions that no longer apply, something we humans are wont to do.
Sam is right: we’re well into the collapse of what Normals think of as our traditional cultural arrangement and organization. The social contract as Americans once knew it is long gone, and it ain’t coming back. Not when half of us are obnoxiously determined to inflict authoritarian tyranny on the half resistant to such, it ain’t. As I keep saying, there is no bridging this gap; the two positions are incompatible, irreconcilable, and not amenable to negotiation or compromise. One side must prevail, and one side must capitulate. It’s a pretty sorry pass all right, but it’s where we are.
Update! Zman puts up some interesting thoughts on civil war as social war:
The term “fourth generation” implies it is new or part of a natural progression. The term “guerrilla war” dates to Napoleon and the Vendée could be called a fourth generation war, even though it occurred in the age of first generation war. The use of subversion and psychological war date to the dawn of settled societies. The non-state actor, using irregular tactics against a state actor, possessing superior military strength, probably dates to the rise of the state itself.
This is more of a language issue, than anything else, but the concept is a useful starting point, when thinking about social conflict in the modern age. For example, the Left’s fetish for doxxing heretics is a facet of the new kind of politics in the surveillance state. It is not just the unmasking, but the fact that the heretic will be known forever, just by putting his name in a google search. Everyone now has a permanent record, so the people in control threaten those who challenge them, with a negative entry on their permanent record.
The question though, is what does the other side look like in this social war? Given the disparity in power, resistance to the ruling orthodoxy will have to be irregular, but within the narrow bounds of the law. It will also have to operate in the social sphere. An obvious example is the the meme war that the alt-right waged on social media during the last election. The swarming of mainstream accounts with mockery and criticism scrambled the signals in the Progressive echo chamber. Conformation became cacophony for them.
That was an ad hoc response, but going forward, a more complex and organized effort will inevitably develop. You see some hints of it with the Identity Evropa guys. They stay out of the spotlight and perform guerrilla marketing style actions, like hanging banners over highway overpasses and putting up posters around Progressive strongholds. The subtle message being sent is “We are in your neighborhoods, walking among you.” It is a form of psychological warfare that encourages the dissidents and freaks out the Progressives.
Of course, an aspect of the social war has been with us since Dan Rather was exposed back in the Bush years. The last two decades since then has been a steady discrediting of the main propaganda organs, by pranksters, honest citizens and partisans. Every time some dope on cable falls for a Sam Hyde prank after a shooting, the mainstream media becomes a bit more useless as a weapon. Trump won the White House largely by riding the fake news wave. The mass media has been turned into a liability.
Following this through to a logical conclusion, the ruling classes of western societies will be engaged in an endless war to undermine the moral legitimacy of their own people. The resistance will be engaged in a war to discredit the factual legitimacy of the the ruling classes. One side can’t be trusted because they believe the wrong things, while the other side cannot be trusted because they lie all the time. Eventually, the people will have to decide if they want to side with the heretics or side with the liars.
That’s what is unique about this new brand of social conflict. In prior guerrilla wars, the public was noting more than camouflage for the resistance and an obstacle for the occupiers. In the information age, the public is the battle field. Instead of winning turf, the goal is to win the crowd. Good humor, cleverness and daring are probably more useful than power and intimidation. The hail fellow well met is hard to hate, even when he is causing trouble. The severe prude is impossible to love, even when she is right.
Even Alinsky himself recognized the power of using scorn and ridicule against your opponents. I suspect that’s why certain ostensibly high-minded cucks have waxed so indignant in opposition to the idea of using the Left’s own weapons against them: not because it’s immoral, but because it’s effective. Those whom the gods would destroy they first make ridiculous, to adapt a fine old phrase.
The nice thing is, Progtards make it so damned easy for us. They can’t help themselves; having already donned the clown suit willingly, they’ve left us with nothing to do but point and laugh. I mean, pussy hats? 137 approved flavors of gender identity? “Racist” coffee shops run by liberals, for liberals, patronized by liberals? Pregnant “men”? Pajama Boy? Urban hispter douchebags with man-buns? Trigglypuff?
Kinda makes you wonder how they ever got this far towards stealing our country from us in the first place, don’t it?