Amongst the collapse fetishists, an interesting observation is that everything basically has collapsed other than the economy. Every institution, every cultural component, has been controlled-demo'd by hostile elites. The economy hums along as the schools are in ruin, as churches wither and die, art and cinema are absurd and meaningless and obscene.
FWIW-- I like your analysis and observation. I don't think it's a given that nuclear powers won't engage in future conflict though, and the reason is that the mindset from 1945-2020 seemed to be that such an action would incur a massive retaliation, an almost irrational response. And now, especially with the shenanigans in the Ukraine where Washington has been fighting Russians with mercs and special forces, it shows that small-scale traditional military conflict is possible without a total nuclear response. Which makes one wonder if limited warfare between nuclear powers will be possible in the future, and also whether tactical nukes would ever be politically possible if one power felt as though they had vital national interests at stake and were willing to live with the international condemnation that would result.
It would seem appropriate that the modern era might make us wistful and longing for the madness of Cold War-era MAD.
Thank you for saying this. The constant hand wringing about being "on the brink of WWIII" is tiresome. Covid showed that it's possible to subdue most of the globe without firing a single bullet. This is how wars will be fought in the future.
Very good take. I’ve gone from looking for answers to solve the problem to realize it’s not getting solved. Prepare for hard times and draw some lines in the sand as to what you can put up with.
An engaging article that deals with two fundamental questions the nation and the American people face today. Indeed, it really seems more like two articles. The first dealing with the likelihood of a conventional third world war, of the type fought between 1939 and 1945, and the second dealing with the profound divisions and demoralization of both American society and western civilization as a whole.
With respect to the first question regarding the possibility of a third world war, whether of the strategic nuclear variety or otherwise, despite its utter absurdity, I am not so sanguine that our that our current reckless political leaders won't blunder into a catastrophic war. Nor do I have even the slightest confidence that our current military leaders, obsessed as they are with the imperatives of DEI, could prevail in even a very limited conventional conflict. In a battle with China in the waters around Taiwan, I can easily imagine one or more American carrier groups being sent to the bottom.
That said, in my opinion, Mr. Lippincott puts his finger squarely on the central crisis of both western and American civilization--a crisis which in Europe was the consequence of the European civil war of 1914-1945, and the subsequent decolonization of Africa and Asia. The first called nationalism into question, because it was associated by many with National Socialism and the onset of war, while the second, by making race a major issue, raised profound doubts about the morality of the West itself and the Christianity which informed it. This is a crisis of confidence in the legitimacy of the very existence of western civilization which is once again, under attack as it was five hundred years ago,
The United States is now facing a similar crisis of confidence, triggered, in my opinion, not by the sacrifices of the Second World War, but by the civil rights movement which ultimately called into question whether Americans really believed Jefferson's assertion that "all men are created equal," and by the Vietnam War which raised severe questions about whether the United States wasn't merely the successor to the European imperialists of the last century.
We are now a nation profoundly divided between those who think that the "promise of America" has been a hypocritical sham since the first African-Americans landed in Jamestown in 1619, and those who still cling to the proud if naive optimism that prevailed in the aftermath of American victory in World War Two.
The question before Americans today is whether we will as Lincoln put it be, "the authors of our own destruction," or regain our self-confidence, reform our deformed institutions and reclaim the freedom that is our birthright.
Like the "shot heard around the world" it only takes one trigger happy idiot to start this.
So I don't think it is as logic based as "Nuclear weapons, insurgency, and the decline of loyalty to the state make a planetary conventional war out of the question. "
on the surface the piece is logical and makes sense... the thesis is that WWIII is impossible and for three reasons. the Israeli interlude is long in the tooth but is perhaps justified by current interest. yet then there is the tone.
reaching the end one realizes there is an unaddressed subtext that is contrary to the piece, which for me makes it a charming piece d’art d’internet. the text is that WWIII is impossible, but the subtext and tone is — that this is bad! it is comic to realize it: does the author really want WWIII to be possible!?
we have here another internet anti-liberal who wants to own the Libs at any price including human sacrifice. surely not, but then you read it! what is preventing war is... yes! all the things that “conservatives” complain about!
the author wanted to write a culture war piece inside of a war piece. the irony is that this becomes a weirdly indirect and compelling argument for why national disunity is good, actually. just imagine what the US or Russia would do if they could mobilize
over and over again, liberalism delivers on its initial Hobbesian promise. give us absolute power, or at least all the institutions, and we will end for you the bellum omnium contra omnium. and it works! you can’t really fault the maker here. in an age where nothing gets delivered—magic internet currency you can’t spend, billion-dollar vaccines that don’t inoculate, and now a plagiarism machine that hallucinates—at last a product that gives you what you paid for.
the author is labouring in false consciousness, simply unable to come to grips with the evaluation of his conclusion. he wants it to be bad, for some reason, when it’s clearly good. that damages the entire piece in a fascinating way. this is an A- homework, and the only thing that could merit the A+ is a little Nietzschean clarity somewhere that the author really means it: war is dead and we have killed it. just say it, mister internet conservative.
Amongst the collapse fetishists, an interesting observation is that everything basically has collapsed other than the economy. Every institution, every cultural component, has been controlled-demo'd by hostile elites. The economy hums along as the schools are in ruin, as churches wither and die, art and cinema are absurd and meaningless and obscene.
FWIW-- I like your analysis and observation. I don't think it's a given that nuclear powers won't engage in future conflict though, and the reason is that the mindset from 1945-2020 seemed to be that such an action would incur a massive retaliation, an almost irrational response. And now, especially with the shenanigans in the Ukraine where Washington has been fighting Russians with mercs and special forces, it shows that small-scale traditional military conflict is possible without a total nuclear response. Which makes one wonder if limited warfare between nuclear powers will be possible in the future, and also whether tactical nukes would ever be politically possible if one power felt as though they had vital national interests at stake and were willing to live with the international condemnation that would result.
It would seem appropriate that the modern era might make us wistful and longing for the madness of Cold War-era MAD.
They haven’t been used…yet.
Thank you for saying this. The constant hand wringing about being "on the brink of WWIII" is tiresome. Covid showed that it's possible to subdue most of the globe without firing a single bullet. This is how wars will be fought in the future.
Very good take. I’ve gone from looking for answers to solve the problem to realize it’s not getting solved. Prepare for hard times and draw some lines in the sand as to what you can put up with.
Profound questions.
An engaging article that deals with two fundamental questions the nation and the American people face today. Indeed, it really seems more like two articles. The first dealing with the likelihood of a conventional third world war, of the type fought between 1939 and 1945, and the second dealing with the profound divisions and demoralization of both American society and western civilization as a whole.
With respect to the first question regarding the possibility of a third world war, whether of the strategic nuclear variety or otherwise, despite its utter absurdity, I am not so sanguine that our that our current reckless political leaders won't blunder into a catastrophic war. Nor do I have even the slightest confidence that our current military leaders, obsessed as they are with the imperatives of DEI, could prevail in even a very limited conventional conflict. In a battle with China in the waters around Taiwan, I can easily imagine one or more American carrier groups being sent to the bottom.
That said, in my opinion, Mr. Lippincott puts his finger squarely on the central crisis of both western and American civilization--a crisis which in Europe was the consequence of the European civil war of 1914-1945, and the subsequent decolonization of Africa and Asia. The first called nationalism into question, because it was associated by many with National Socialism and the onset of war, while the second, by making race a major issue, raised profound doubts about the morality of the West itself and the Christianity which informed it. This is a crisis of confidence in the legitimacy of the very existence of western civilization which is once again, under attack as it was five hundred years ago,
The United States is now facing a similar crisis of confidence, triggered, in my opinion, not by the sacrifices of the Second World War, but by the civil rights movement which ultimately called into question whether Americans really believed Jefferson's assertion that "all men are created equal," and by the Vietnam War which raised severe questions about whether the United States wasn't merely the successor to the European imperialists of the last century.
We are now a nation profoundly divided between those who think that the "promise of America" has been a hypocritical sham since the first African-Americans landed in Jamestown in 1619, and those who still cling to the proud if naive optimism that prevailed in the aftermath of American victory in World War Two.
The question before Americans today is whether we will as Lincoln put it be, "the authors of our own destruction," or regain our self-confidence, reform our deformed institutions and reclaim the freedom that is our birthright.
Interesting comment. Thanks for posting
Like the "shot heard around the world" it only takes one trigger happy idiot to start this.
So I don't think it is as logic based as "Nuclear weapons, insurgency, and the decline of loyalty to the state make a planetary conventional war out of the question. "
Have you noticed what is happening in Ukraine?
BTW,
What do you define as a world war?
Currently the U.S. military is involved in military actions in South America, Africa, South Asia, The Middle East, Europe, The
Philippines.
Only a spiritual revival will save our country. Nothing else.
Yet the public will be interminably threatened with it to manufacture consent.
It’s called “brinksmanship” when used as a bargaining chip against adversaries but it works well on the general population too.
on the surface the piece is logical and makes sense... the thesis is that WWIII is impossible and for three reasons. the Israeli interlude is long in the tooth but is perhaps justified by current interest. yet then there is the tone.
reaching the end one realizes there is an unaddressed subtext that is contrary to the piece, which for me makes it a charming piece d’art d’internet. the text is that WWIII is impossible, but the subtext and tone is — that this is bad! it is comic to realize it: does the author really want WWIII to be possible!?
we have here another internet anti-liberal who wants to own the Libs at any price including human sacrifice. surely not, but then you read it! what is preventing war is... yes! all the things that “conservatives” complain about!
the author wanted to write a culture war piece inside of a war piece. the irony is that this becomes a weirdly indirect and compelling argument for why national disunity is good, actually. just imagine what the US or Russia would do if they could mobilize
over and over again, liberalism delivers on its initial Hobbesian promise. give us absolute power, or at least all the institutions, and we will end for you the bellum omnium contra omnium. and it works! you can’t really fault the maker here. in an age where nothing gets delivered—magic internet currency you can’t spend, billion-dollar vaccines that don’t inoculate, and now a plagiarism machine that hallucinates—at last a product that gives you what you paid for.
the author is labouring in false consciousness, simply unable to come to grips with the evaluation of his conclusion. he wants it to be bad, for some reason, when it’s clearly good. that damages the entire piece in a fascinating way. this is an A- homework, and the only thing that could merit the A+ is a little Nietzschean clarity somewhere that the author really means it: war is dead and we have killed it. just say it, mister internet conservative.