Why “Civil War” Rhetoric Is Far-Fetched

1,264 words

Tim Pool is always predicting “civil war.” So it is no surprise that on a recent podcast, Tim brought on guests Rudyard Lynch (aka, Whatifalthist) and Scott Greer to discuss the possibility of a civil war in modern America. Anyone familiar with these three knows why this conversation made for an entertaining discussion. Rudyard is famous for using macro-level models to predict that civil conflict will erupt in America with at least “1000 deaths” by sometime in the first half of 2025. Greer, on the other hand, has taken a very levelheaded position, that no, there will not be a civil war. Their discussion was interesting, but there are a few broader issues that are that should be discussed if we are to understand not only why a civil conflict is unlikely in 2024 America, but in modern America period.

The first is the aging population in America. If the US had a healthy average age in the 20s, things would likely be very different in terms of radical politics of both the Left and the Right. Perhaps the 60s and 70s could give us an example of what that could be. Take the 1968 DNC protests versus the 2024 DNC protests: so much for tens of thousands of Antifa militants descending upon Chicago this year. The January 6th protest would probably have been more effective if the average protestor had been a 20-something college radical rather than a middle-aged family man. People without bills to pay or children to feed are more likely to be effective, as was seen the initial pro-Gaza protests in universities across the country. This has been a political fact since the first uprisings in the ancient world. Imagine the Gaza protests if the average American were 25 and young people by far outnumbered the old. Youth brings an energy and idealism that cannot be replicated. It is no coincidence that the revolutions we see across the world today are in countries with young populations. Take the Arab Spring for example.

The other issue is the fact that community is dead in America. Most people today are wholly atomized. They don’t even know their neighbors’ names. The closest things they have to a tribe are their sports teams, political affiliations, and maybe their alma maters.

Today we don’t put much thought into Paul Revere’s famous Night Ride, but let’s take a moment to think what had to go into such an operation. First of all, Paul Revere enjoyed a high degree of recognition and credibility in multiple communities across Massachusetts. Second, people had to be motivated to follow through on his call that “The regulars are coming!” Third,  the people needed to be organized enough to effectively defend their homes. Fourth, it took a lot of social trust and solidarity to fight against a professional army at the drop of a hat. The colonists had a reasonable expectation that their neighbors would have their backs. Finally, the colonies had perhaps the highest quality of life of anywhere in the world at the time. Risking that took a lot of idealism.

Modern Americans hardly compare. Your mayor could call the people to arms, and the vast majority wouldn’t even know who he was, let alone follow him. While in the communities surrounding Boston, nearly every man served together in the local militia and was trained and organized, you don’t even know if your neighbor wishes you death for your political leanings. But let’s just say for the sake of argument you somehow did have a militia, would they follow you in battle against a professional military force? And if they did, would the other militias that you may have never even met do the same? We are not our ancestors, not even close. They were far better, far more serious men.

The same principle can be applied to other uprisings such as the Requetes of Spain, organized Catholic civilian militias who volunteered their men to fight the Leftist government and their Communist and Anarchist allies for the Nationalist cause. They fought three wars against the Spanish government in the 19th Century, the Carlist Wars. They lost all three but continued to organize even under a hostile anticlerical government. The Nationalists would not have won the war without their support.

The final issue, one that was brought up in the Tim Pool debate, is the issue of comfort. Civil wars and revolutions are most typically a result of a bread riot breaking containment and spreading, as seen in the Russian and French Revolutions. Life in America is getting harder, but the US is still comparatively one of the richest countries on Earth, and the average citizen has access to a relatively comfortable standard of living, even living paycheck to paycheck. Despite all the things Americans whine about, people have a lot to lose. This need not be a hindrance to revolution in a young and idealistic population (indeed, successful revolutions are always led by counter elites, who have much to lose). But with an older and economically comfortable population, revolution is seen as puerile at best and simply destructive at worst. The Beatles song “Revolution” captures this sentiment best.

War is both rational and irrational: irrational in that a better solution could always be imagined, rational because people refuse to take the peaceful option, for instance, a competitor is unwilling to compromise. In our own case, however, war would be completely irrational. For the government, it could possibly spell a collapse of the world economy. For the people, it would mean the loss of all the comfort that comes with living in a first world society, even if said society is eroding, albeit slowly. For the individual who aims to be a revolutionary, it would mean near guaranteed failure and, even if successful, would still decrease comfort and quality of life.

This is perhaps the most damning refutation to Rudyard’s claim that civil war is inevitable because it will solve the problems of the most downtrodden. In fact, the vice-based comforts of the modern world act as opiates of the masses. Things like pornography and video games serve as distractions.

The question of whether there would be an “incel” (involuntary celibate) uprising colored the background of the debate. So if the brains of those most likely to commit antisocial violence are tricked into believing things aren’t as bad as they really are, the models which Rudyard use become obsolete.

Civil war seems rational to people who think hyper-rationally. They see the issues of the modern world and where they inevitably lead. They know that there must be a radical break but lack a crucial skill: understanding how normal people think. Rational action varies among people based on their time preferences. A low IQ criminal might rob someone in broad daylight, not thinking about the next day when he gets hauled off to jail. This is perfectly reasonable to him. Meanwhile, the ultra-high time preference autist thinks in existential dread of the dystopian future that will come to pass, perhaps even after he is dead.

In my last article on game theory, I explored how people’s perception of the world is a predictor of their level of collective action. Anyone who wishes to guide the direction of society must understand the role of systemic incentive structures, game theory, and the perceptions that real people hold. Otherwise they are just screaming into the void. Rudyard is right that, based on the cold numbers, we really should be headed toward Civil War Two. But based on the Zeitgeist—what people are apparently now calling the “vibe”—it seems quite far-fetched.