"A Thinly-Veiled Bloodlust"
None of us actually want a civil war. Right?
Malcom Kyeyune’s really been on a roll lately, hasn’t he? He was recently published in Unherd, where he spoke again concerning the prospects for civil war in the U.S. I hope you’ll find time to read the whole thing, but I wanted to highlight the following passage, which expresses a concern that’s been on my mind lately.
One of the most worrisome aspects of contemporary American political discussion is the sense one often gets that many participants are possessed by a thinly-veiled bloodlust. Sometimes, that bloodlust is not even thinly-veiled; after the unarmed USAF veteran Ashley [sic] Babbit was fatally shot through a locked door in the Capitol building, many anonymous (and some less anonymous) commentators intimated that perhaps the problem with police violence in America wasn’t that officers were shooting and killing too many unarmed people — but rather that maybe they just weren’t killing enough of them. Following a wave of destructive riots that tore through many cities in the United States last year, this turn toward open celebration of equally useless violence when it is visited on the enemy team speaks to a dangerous sort of polarisation. [bold mine]
I totally get the sentiment. It’s not easy to harbor a gracious sentiment towards members of the ruling class and their supporters out in society given much of what they say and do. For instance, look at this utterly despicable attempt to gaslight concerns over inflation by a columnist for The New York Times:
Then there was this flip-out over the Virginia gubernatorial race, when resulted in the unseating of a left-wing incumbent:
There’s also been open calls for violence if the Kyle Rittenhouse trial doesn’t end to the left-wing mob’s satisfaction:
Lastly, policymakers themselves, like the San Francisco Office of the District Attorney Chief of Staff, are getting into the act, apparently of the thought that their job is to insult and troll those whom they serve:
It’s true - we’re not dealing with good people. We’re dealing with folks who genuinely hate those not on their side, who don’t believe what they believe, and revel in the misery of others. These sorts of people tend to form the basis of some of history’s cruelest regimes who committed the most horrendous of acts. This isn’t hyperbole, either. Little did they know that when they claimed the “cruelty is the point,” they were projecting the entire time. What we see from our ruling class isn’t a byproduct of the Trump presidency. There was always an undercurrent of hatred and utter contempt lurking beneath the surface, manifesting in the incredulity that there exists millions of Americans who lead less state-dependent, more self-reliant, less decadent, more patriotic, and less nihilistic lifestyles. The ruling class wonders why others can’t be more like them. But why would they want to?
The cruelty, combined with the utterly untouchable nature of the ruling class elicits strong emotions: anger is foremost, but so is a feeling in helplessness. In the face of such awful, yet powerful, people, it’s easy to become consumed by these emotions and desire to lash out violently. After all, they wouldn’t miss the chance to do the same if they could get away with it. As I said at the outset, I totally get the feeling.
I also know it wouldn’t fix a thing.
Probably because it’s all I’ve ever known, but, like many of you, I’d rather live in a country where people are allowed to enjoy the benefits of living here while also hating that same country and its people with a passion. The problem isn’t that such awful people get to live here and be our equals - we’ve always lived in close proximity to our adversaries.
The problem is that these voices no longer exist on the margins, but comprise a new mainstream and are effectively running this country. That’s the issue, not that these people exist at all. There will always be those who don’t appreciate what they’ve been given or have it so good, they’re miserable and seek to exact their misery onto others.
But while these are just sentiments to me, they’re more than that for others. I, too, get the sense Kyeyune does that many of us, on the Left and the Right, are indeed chomping at the bit to inflict violence on those on the other side. Ashli Babbitt was regarded by the Left as a threat greater to this country than Osama bin Laden ever was, even though the worst thing she did was foolishly jump through a window inside the U.S. Capitol after being warned not to. The Left reveled in her death the way I’ve rarely seen them revel in the death of anyone. The rhetoric displayed in the tweets above, the incessant warnings of an existential right-wing threat to the country, and the media’s attempt to shape our reality to paint a picture entirely unfavorable to anyone not in total lock-step with the regime sure sounds like a prelude to violence.
On the other hand, many on the Right have all but given up on the republic also and are seeking regime change. They’re calling for things like secession and, if they don’t get it their way, they claim a civil war will erupt. It may or may not, but it sure sounds to me they’re steeling for a fight. Combine that with the passion and rage that builds up as a result of resentment, it’s not hard to see how otherwise decent people can become instantly indecent. I mean, how else do you deal with people who hate you? Hate them back, right?
It goes even further than that. As they’ve given up on the republic, they also indulge in fantasies of Caesars and Caudillo-type leaders. Trump was the first iteration of that fantasy, but I fear he won’t be the last. There are many on the Right who genuinely want to see America’s own Franco or Pinochet and unleash holy hell on our enemies.
The thing is, I probably agree with the diagnosis they have for this country. But I cannot and will not endorse civil war and dictatorship. That’d be the end of this country, at least as we’ve know it. Yet, I don’t know if I’d stand in their way, either. There’s nothing more dangerous than to put yourself between two freight trains headed straight for each other at top speed.
More:
This might seem a strange assertion to make, given that a country cannot just decline a war declaration from an enemy, but it holds true. There’s a formal or informal understanding of who is an actual combatant and who is not.
In contrast, warfare in primitive or tribal societies does not make any distinction between a civilian and a soldier. There are just enemies; ambushing and killing a 12-year-old girl drawing water at the creek is seen as normal as killing an adult warrior. This is where the European habit of calling uncivilised peoples “savages” comes from; rather than merely being an expression of racist chauvinism, Europeans were in fact oftentimes shocked by the habit of Native Americans and other peoples to ‘not play by the rules’.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it as many times as needed - I don’t believe we’re headed for a civil war. But I do certainly believe we’re headed for escalating internal conflict which will manifest violently. We’re already seeing it, not just in the explosion of crime, but also in the incidents that don’t get reported to police – brawls, road rage, bursts of anger that seemingly appear out of nowhere. These sorts of things happen in the best of times, so why would anyone expect the frequency of such incidents to decline during the bad times?
When this country hits economic hard times, you’re going to see people indulge their dark side, either in an attempt to survive or just because they feel they now have license to act out against a world gone mad. You can bet some people will use racial, religious, or sexual hatred to take from people or inflict harm on them for supposedly doing them wrong.
Simply put – there need not be a civil war for this country to descend into disorder and debilitating violence. We see it in Latin America and South Africa today and neither has managed to totally collapsed.
Kyeyune shares one final unsettling assessment:
The legitimacy of its elite has been shaken repeatedly, and faith in the electoral process itself is now rapidly declining among large segments of the electorate. America is currently a malarial swamp of strange new faiths, creeds, soothsayers and itinerant prophets; from Q to vaccine scientism to various forms of psuedo-gnosticism centered around trans people. To a student of history, this should also be a familiar — and quite ominous — sign: France in the 1780s had its own scientism and mesmerism, and Russia in the 1910s and 1980s was rife with soothsayers and itinerant preachers of new strange faiths. [bold mine]
The French Revolution began in 1789. The Russian Revolution started in 1917. The Soviet Union’s collapse began in the 1980s. It’s easy, having lived in arguably the freest, arguably most successful example of a pluralistic society of all time, to think the indulging of Satanism by public figures, for example, harbors no relevance to the country’s fate. But history shows there is a connection and that it’s a sure sign that we’re headed in a very bad direction.
Again, I don’t see a civil war happening, nor do I see a collapse anywhere on the horizon for the U.S. In fact, I’m one of those exasperating folks who believe this derelict, dysfunctional regime can exist into perpetuity because the pit is truly bottomless. This is still not a future to look forward to.
And you know what frightens me most? This might be the best we can hope for.