A Most Violent Weekend
A Most Violent Weekend
As the temperature heats up across the country (figuratively and literally), it seems the bloodshed is rising right along with it.
It all started Thursday evening with a shocking incident in Milwaukee which, in retrospect, served as a portend of what was to come:
By late Sunday:
And, as I woke up this morning, I was greeted with the following news:
As the temperature heats up across the country (figuratively and literally), it seems the bloodshed is rising right along with it. I explained in my last post that I see an American version of The Troubles of Northern Ireland kicking off over abortion, combined with the fury that animated the Spanish Civil War, one of the deadliest wars of the 20th century.
But, something else that’s become apparent to me is that an American “Troubles” would be merely one dimension of a much broader internal conflict brewing inside the United States. I’ve spent a lot of time talking about it on this blog, but, if I was theorizing before, I’m dead serious about it now. America may not be headed towards a civil war in an academic sense, but we’re definitely headed towards an upheaval lasting at least a generation and may determine the ultimate fate of the republic.
Some readers may consider this a hyperbolic overreaction - after all, mass shootings happened in happier times for America. True, but that’s the thing: they’re now taking place in a hyper-partisan atmosphere where the air is thick with hostility. Mass shootings have always been rife for politicization, but, now, it seems there’s no take which doesn’t involve implicating and indicting the other side. As you’ll see, what used to be overheated discussions about policy has been replaced with wholesale demonization of the other side as not merely being complicit in the violence, but being the perpetrators themselves.
One of the running themes of this blog is how crime is not only becoming a problem in America once more, but how crime is being weaponized by the Regime as they establish a new order - anarcho-tyranny. My belief is that crime will constitute a “theater” of sorts in the upcoming internal conflict, increasing our personal likelihood of being exposed to violence. Most of us will be fortunate enough to not be victimized, but it’s about more than just personal safety. Too much crime in a politically toxic environment is a destabilizing combination. If a state cannot perform a task as fundamental as protecting its citizenry, this calls the legitimacy of the state into question. Recall that, a year ago, France, a linchpin of Western civilization, was dabbling with the prospect of civil war over what, do you say? Crime.
It’s one thing to fail to uphold the rule of law, another to use crime as a means of waging war against your own citizens. We saw yet another example of this in the media’s coverage of the multiple mass shootings. The Buffalo incident drew the most media attention, as well as the personal notice of the president, due less likely to the number of fatalities, but the identity of the killer (White male) and his motivations (among many, White supremacy). For anyone who still isn’t convinced the Regime covers these stories with a specific agenda in mind, ask yourself: Are you aware of the following incident?
Over a year ago, a White male went to three Atlanta area spas, shooting and killing eight, seven of whom were women and six of whom were Asian-American. It was a major news story at the time and was, without much analysis, immediately assumed to be racially motivated, generating tremendous momentum behind the “Stop Asian Hate” movement. Later, the motive turned out to be something else entirely, but the point is that the Regime covers stories that serve a specific purpose.
That purpose? There’s only one reason to single out one racial/gender identity when it comes to mass shootings - persecution. This, despite the fact, like America as a whole, there exists considerable diversity among mass shooters:
But, it’s not just about race and gender, it’s also about a cultural and political identity. Guns and White males are associated with Heartland America and the Right, so placing under the microscope incidents perpetrated by White males serves the purpose of implicating an entire swath of Americans as an existential threat which must be prosecuted with the full force of federal authority. Again, if you need any more proof, look at the messaging from Regime-friendly media outlets:
The “racist delusion” the article cites is the “Great Replacement” theory, which claims America’s historically White European population is being replaced by people of non-European descent, a sort of indirect form of genocide. The theory is controversial, to say the least, and it does have some roots in racist, White nationalist circles. I won’t render an opinion as to the validity of the “Great Replacement.”
However, if the Republican and right-wing mainstream really does believe in the “Great Replacement,” then so does the Democratic and left-wing mainstream. The irreplaceable Pedro Gonzalez points out just a few examples of how the Left not only believes in the Great Replacement, but celebrates it:
Spare yourselves talk of “context” and “history.” Tell people of any race they’re going down and see what kind of reaction you get. It won’t be one of gratitude. Yet, this has become the norm in America when it comes to Whites. I cited author and fellow Substacker Ed West while explaining, in a prior entry, how the Left plays with fire when it comes to the matter of race in America:
It is perhaps not surprising that so many Republicans feel this way when their opponents repeatedly tell them so. When Democrat senators gleefully announced that: ‘The demographics of America are not on the side of the Republican Party’, or when New York Times op-eds boast about ‘replacing’ them.
The nature of America has drastically changed in one lifetime, becoming something far more ideological and utopian, compared to what it once was. At the time that Northern Ireland was descending into war, the United States was in many ways just another country. As Christopher Caldwell wrote: ‘Americans understood themselves as they always had — as essentially a European country, displaced westward’, a country ‘combining… wealth, cultural homogeneity, and relative equality of status and income’. It then had its lowest foreign-born population share since the Republic was founded, and the largest sources of migration were Italy and Germany.
More:
The New York Times quoted two academics, Maureen Craig at N.Y.U. and Jennifer Richeson at Yale, whose paper Majority No More? found that ‘White Americans considering a future in which the white population has declined to less than 50 percent of the national population are more likely to perceive that the societal status of their racial group — in terms of resources or as the “prototypical” American — is under threat, which in turn leads to stronger identification as white, the expression of more negative racial attitudes and emotions, greater opposition to diversity, and greater endorsement of conservative political ideology, political parties, and candidates.’
Similar papers have been quoted showing that, when presented with a future where they become a minority, white Americans become more nationalist, conservative and tribal – but what is surprising is that anyone finds this surprising.
…
In multicultural democracies people tend to vote along ethnic and confessional lines, and as America has become more multicultural so have its voting patterns followed a similar trajectory, with the Democratic Party an alliance of minorities and the rich (who are, as Amy Chua put it, a sort of minority in themselves). In contrast, Republicans now enjoy a 40-point lead among white men without a college degree. Diversity is only one of 10 drivers of polarization cited by Jonathan Haidt, yet it is also the only one which is an article of faith among one party, and the country’s elite. [bold mine]
I closed the loop by pointing to The New York Times’ usage of “racism” and questioning whether America really did become that much more racist beginning in 2014, or whether outlets like the NYT decided race was the lens through which every single issue would be viewed.
In many ways, America’s racial problems are a manufactured crisis. I’ve never believed race relations in this country are anywhere near as bad as they often seem. But, if the Regime is really that concerned about rampant racism, White nationalism, and all the other moral crises that animate them, everything they say and do fuels the inferno, instead of easing tensions. The focus on mass shootings perpetrated by White males, combined with the memory-holing of the recent New York City subway mass shooting and the Waukesha vehicular assault on a mostly-White crowd, killing six and injuring 62, is the sort of thing that has a tendency to either demoralize or radicalize people. Why would people try to think moderately when the most powerful forces in a society is siding against you, often in league with violent savages who, unlike you, have invested nothing into society? What’s the use of moderation when your own president, who claimed a trip to Waukesha after the mass murder was unfeasible, suddenly finds the time to visit Buffalo?
Radicalism is intensifying in America, a worrying sign for our future. Still, I don’t see this country heading back towards the days of racial segregation and White supremacy. As a whole, Whites are arguably the least racially-conscious group in America and are far too divided, politically. The Democratic Party’s monopoly on the Black vote, as a perfect example, is a big reason why racialized politics works for the Left. A historically aggrieved group under the influence (or influencing) the largest political party in the country can become something of a regime in its own right. The only real counter-weight to a force like this would be for the Right to further racialize its politics, something it’s trying not to do, as it’d merely confirm the Regime’s worst suspicions.
Beyond that, it’s hard to see where this is all going. Except a more violent, self-segregating future. America is a massive, diverse country and there’s a place for everyone. If self-sorting is the only way to avoid a violent upheaval (read: civil war), perhaps its for the best. After all, it’s becoming increasingly clear many Americans don’t want to live close to each other, anymore. But, for how long can we simply avoid running into each other? Eventually, we have to cross lines, if only out of sheer necessity, and elbows will rub up against each other. What then? Will the pent-up hatred and resentment flash over into something truly awful?
It might be something beyond our control as individuals. But, what we can do is pay attention and choose not to ignore very obvious signals indicating the direction we’re going as a country. The only thing that hasn’t changed is that our objective, as individuals, remains unchanged: live to see another day. Here’s some great advice for doing just that, in good times and bad.
Your life and loved ones are all that matters in this world yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If a war is coming to America, best you stay out of it. When it’s time to fight for our life and loved ones, we’ll know it, because there will be no other choice. Until then:
Stay out of the road, if you want to grow old.
- Pink Floyd
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!