Sunday, August 01, 2004

The Revolution Will Be Baumgartenized

This blog, Smacktooth, mentioned an article the author read (which he can't find) about how the polarization of our country is setting us really close to the brink of civil war. That seems a bit far-fetched, though I'm sure someone somewhere wrote an article about it.

Here's his recollection of the article:

The paper talked about the right wings attempts to take over the fundamentals of America again and how they were making giant leaps and bounds under the feeding of George Bush and his administration. The right is well know for stroking the desires of the underclass, like racism, bigotry, and popular anger, and making them seem ok to rally against publicly. Now is as good a time as ever to do it in the post-9/11 environment. America has not had an enemy so easily spotted in ages to gather its forces and opinions against. Now that the uninformed, the uneducated, and the ill mannered can pinpoint a single enemy by the color of his skin, the right has found its launching point and has attacked its issues like a starving dog on meat. "If you're not against them, you’re against us." They've managed to polarize the country in delicate and specific ways not seen on our soil since the first civil war or the civil rights movements of the 60s and 70s, which can now be called a cold civil war.

The paper predicted the election would be close; with rumors flying from both sides of vote fixing that only polarize people into larger groups. Florida would again be a key issue state and where fighting would probably break out first, but in short bursts. It would be escalated by the calling in of the National Guard by Jeb at his brothers urging in the weeks following the election to help the police keep order and ending with the citizens eventually attacking them. The fighting would spread through the bible belt the fastest as the issue would take on people own individual angers and the "believers" would turn on the non. Public violence would die down and flare up for years to come. It wouldn't be a full out fighting civil war because that would involve the turning of massive military units and their commanders. It would most likely be "terrorist activities" against government structures that would unite groups to fight. An "underground militia" would be born and would grow quickly till a national commander was named and he or she would be tagged as equal to bin Laden in Americas common enemy. Assassinations would be common, but mob violence would be sparse in the long run. The economy would suffer from the loss of companies transferring overseas to a more stable location where the government would be more willing to crush revolt, like China or Japan.

This leaves me with some questions. The national head of this underground obviously wouldn't be a public figure, but would he answer to one in a round about way? Would this be to the Republican Party what the IRA is to Shinn Fein or Hamas is to the PLO? Seems unlikely because the connection between the militant groups and the respective parties in both of those cases grew from the feeling of disenfranchisement and futility that came from working through political channels. As the Republicans are currently in power, it doesn't seem like the militancy could grow in that way.

Though it would be a good way to keep power, as Republicans are traditionally considered tougher on crime and better with defense and whatnot. That's only if they could keep themselves distanced from the militants.

So all in all I'm not sure how this militant violence would help the Republicans solidify power . . . though I think the basic point of their catering to an ignorant, prejudiced, fundamentalist base is more or less right on.

The guerrilla angle is more plausible, but way less interesting than an all out lefty vs. righty throwdown. I've been contemplating the logistics of this since smacktooth brought it up. At first I thought our--the left's--chances in full-scale conflict would be pretty slim. I thought we'd get crushed, looking out from my west coast perch over the sea of sociopaths known in the common tongue as the midwest. Plus, other than Clark, I assumed that all military men were Conservatives. So if there was a turning of millitary leaders, most of them would side with the right. Frightening.

Then I remembered an analysis I read in Time--which I can't access here because you have to pay for access to archived articles. Anyways, the gist was that Americans with with college degrees were just as deeply polarized as the nation at large. The divide is more or less along the lines of major. People with liberal arts and sciences degrees tend overwhelmingly to be leftist. Business majors are conservative. Looking at the chief beneficiaries of Bush's tax plan gives proof enough of this.

In that I found hope. While the bible-belters are creating a rigid and labyrinthine bureaucracy charged with running their war machine, the hippy leftists will all form communes dedicated to this and that: effective, eco-friendly weaponry; hemp uniforms; fusion power etc etc. We'd obviously have light sabres. We'd also have the buddhist warrior monks (I'm talking some Shaolin shit, not the Tibetan Buddhists), the yogis--all the crazy eastern religion/martial arts shit. We'd have Tarrantino for rousing soundtracks.

So the trick would be surviving the initial onslaught. Catching and holding them in a war of attrition, probably somewhere in the Rockies is the key. The mountain terrain would leave their hulking tanks ineffective and highly succeptible to the guerrilla campaign by the Forest Service/Green Peace brigade. I imagine some crazy Endor shit going down there, the M1 Abrams tank as useless as the AT-AT walker against the eco-terrorists and forest rangers. Our troops will be better able to handle the psychological trauma of the long mountain standoff because we'll have Tibetan Buddhist chaplains teaching the 8 fold path to the cessation of worldly pain. The Christian Ascetics can come along too.

Once we're deadlocked in the mountains and the seige begins, having most of the scientists and theoreticians will allow us to far outstrip their research and development pace. That's when we get light sabres. These, in the confident and near clairvoyant hands of the buddhist warrior monks, the tide will more or less turn. The yogis will be effective sabboteurs, as they can reverse-digest all manner of contraband and weaponry via the anus and reproduce it at vital moments.

I feel good about our chances.


10 Comments:

At 11:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

People have been preparing for this for longer than you know. Do you think it's an accident that all of the liberals have moved to the coasts? No. We're hiding behind the safety of the mountains.

Since the extremely conservative sentiment spewing out of the midwest increases exponentially in vitriol with distance from San Francisco, the west coast has both the Cascades *and* the Rockies to protect us. The stupidity on the east coast grows only linearly with distance from New York city, so the Appalachians should be sufficient to shelter our beret-wearing, bongo-drumming leftist interests on the East Coast.

There isn't a lot of fertile land on the coasts, but at least we'll have California. We'll also have the coasts themselves, meaning that we can harvest the bounty of the sea and enrich ourselves with trade from the ports. Unfortunately, the greater majority of liberals have a bewildering and naive fear of globalization, so our trade efforts will probably be severely impaired.

Another problem is that about 98% of all of America's weapons are designed and produced in Orange County, a traditional stronghold of republican ideology. If Orange County can be taken, the country will quickly be swept blue with leftist thought.

After that, we'll just have to if our angry rhetoric can work as a system of government.

--Mike Sheffler

 
At 8:30 AM, Blogger Luke said...

lol, don't beat yourself up, I spent an hour on google myself, trying every string of words imaginable. When I ran out of ideas, I started recycling them in different orders. Pointless, I know.

 
At 8:42 AM, Blogger Luke said...

I forgot about this, we also have all the significant ports. The East Coast is less thoroughly liberal than the west, but you're right about the move to the right being less severe as you head west from NYC. So even if we couldn't hold the east coast as convincingly, that's not a big deal, all the good shit comes from China and SE Asia any way, one well-placed bomb to the Panama Canal and the conservatives would be in dire straits--er, no pun intended.

Don't worry about Canada, they voluntarily chose universal healthcare. THey're on our side by default, especially those in Alberta and BC. Siding with the Conservatives would eventually lose BC it's unofficial cash-crop, Marijuana.

Smuggling things via the ol' continental silk road then through europe wouldn't really work for them either as the conservatives have been bitching for YEARS that Europe is more or less communist (utterly without merit), and we all know how much animosity comes from the mainland of that continent. I don't think we have to worry about the Arabian Peninsula.

Oil could be tough, though. We'd have to secure Alaska right-quick, then put the scientists to work on alternative fuels--and light sabres.

 
At 12:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aw FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK. Sorry. I’m frustrated as usual. What you talked about in your post, I’ve been kicking around the idea for a year or two as another one of my mental screenplays. It’s not like it’s an amazingly unique idea or anything, but I hate hearing people talk about what I (ridiculously) still consider “my” idea when I’m personally incapable of actually writing the screenplay and a million times more incapable of turning it into a movie even if it was written.
But I swear, the three or four scenes that I have planned out REALLY WELL are cool.
Extra frustration: what Luke is talking about also ties into an article that I was going to write but decided not to because it was “too political.” It was going to be called “The Politics of Fuck You,” about how everybody complains about the coarsening of the political dialogue. I was basically thinking that both sides are equal opportunity offenders but then I thought that the Right would actually have a MOTIVE for seriously coarsening the dialogue. Like Luke said, theoretically it could lead to a civil war.
Luke expanded the idea a little further than I thought it could go realistically. My theory (for the article, not the screenplay) was that the Right would to provoke want a civil war because they’d win almost instantly, what with owning all the guns. Back in the sixties some of the leftists got the idea to stockpile guns, but I don’t see that happening these days.
You two’s theories about Californian’s hanging tough behind mountain ranges are interesting, but…honestly, I can’t picture it. I could easily believe that, say, the guys who stormed Normandy were split equally between left and right politically, but this is fifty years later, aaaaand… c’mon, you see what I mean. For personal pragmatic reason I feel the need to avoid a war because all my favorite artists would be dead or hiding. No good.
But, assuming I didn’t get here too late, this thread is good…you guys keep throwing out ideas…I swear I won’t mentally store them away to write down later and claim as my own…I would never do such a thing.

-ben

 
At 1:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(apologies if this got posted twice. Something is the matter.)

Aw FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK. Sorry. I’m frustrated as usual. What you talked about in your post, I’ve been kicking around the idea for a year or two as another one of my mental screenplays. It’s not like it’s an amazingly unique idea or anything, but I hate hearing people talk about what I (ridiculously) still consider “my” idea when I’m personally incapable of actually writing the screenplay and a million times more incapable of turning it into a movie even if it was written.
But I swear, the three or four scenes that I have planned out REALLY WELL are cool.
Extra frustration: what Luke is talking about also ties into an article that I was going to write but decided not to because it was “too political.” It was going to be called “The Politics of Fuck You,” about how everybody complains about the coarsening of the political dialogue. I was basically thinking that both sides are equal opportunity offenders but then I thought that the Right would actually have a MOTIVE for seriously coarsening the dialogue. Like Luke said, theoretically it could lead to a civil war.
Luke expanded the idea a little further than I thought it could go realistically. My theory (for the article, not the screenplay) was that the Right would to provoke want a civil war because they’d win almost instantly, what with owning all the guns. Back in the sixties some of the leftists got the idea to stockpile guns, but I don’t see that happening these days.
You two’s theories about Californian’s hanging tough behind mountain ranges are interesting, but…honestly, I can’t picture it. I could easily believe that, say, the guys who stormed Normandy were split equally between left and right politically, but this is fifty years later, aaaaand… c’mon, you see what I mean. For personal pragmatic reason I feel the need to avoid a war because all my favorite artists would be dead or hiding. No good.
But, assuming I didn’t get here too late, this thread is good…you guys keep throwing out ideas…I swear I won’t mentally store them away to write down later and claim as my own…I would never do such a thing.

 
At 8:26 AM, Blogger Luke said...

It's funny that you'd post all that Ben. The whole time I was writing this post and the one after it, the individual instances were running through my head like a movie. I was thinking about character development, thematics, but mostly the choreography of the battle scenes. I would kill dead the shakey cam theatrics that plague modern action movies. All flawless steady pans for this gent. As I was thinking about it, it felt like an event movie, something huge--but good, so not like any event movie in the last say 10 years, maybe longer.

We should co-author the script, not that I'm anymore likely to try and get it turned into a movie . . . or that the divisive script would have any chance getting sold to the kind of studio that could make something that big.

I want Lawrence of Arabia big. Shot in Cinerama. You're gonna need pan and scan just to fit it into normal theatres.

Huge.

And no jerkiness. Take that Ridley Scott.

 
At 1:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another nice thing is that, not only do we have the scientists to make the bomb, but we have access to as much nuclear waste as we could ever want via Hanford. Come to think of it, who needs bombs? We could please the downwinders by rendering that crap aerosol and spraying it out over the midwest. Presuming it didn't mutate the crops into an additional fighting force for the right, it would go a long way towards drying up America's breadbasket.

--Mike Sheffler

 
At 1:49 PM, Blogger Luke said...

We also have Ben's house, which was a uranium/plutonium mine.

 
At 1:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aerasol nuclear waste? Now THAT'S the kind of thing i'm talking about. Why does that idea sound so familiar... Luke, didn't you have a similiar, post-apocalyptic notion not long ago? You were talking about using fans to blow the fumes AWAY, but it's similar.

i'm on the fence on shaky cams. They're absolute crap in martial arts scenes, of course. Martial arts scenes are basically ballet for guys and applying shakey cams is just the director saying, "Look at me! I have moves too!" Idiot. For battle scenes, you can see why the directors use it. Chaotic frenzy, fog of war, etc. But in Gladitor for instance (in the first scene) i could see what the fuck was happening. And that sucked. i think Scott applied it better in Black Hawk Down (he scaled it back for one thing), and it worked in Saving Private Ryan too.

But Lawrence of Arabia, yeah, that's the idea. And nobody makes movies like that anymore. Well, actually, Lord of the Rings is exactly like that. It's easy to forget because of, you know, elves and shit.

Anyway, one of the things that got me started thinking about this kind of thing was Black Hawk Down. You've got your block to block combat in Mogadishu, and i kept wondering what it would look like in a populous American city (my guess: about the same, but everything getting blown up and shot is more expensive). Along the same lines, what would a Lawrence of Arabia like scene be like some in some pretty part of the heartland. Pretty cool, cinematography wise.

i still have trouble picturing people of a certain political persuasion violently attacking anyone, but than what's a semi-hot button issue political issue nowadays? CLONING. And guess who fucked up that particular idea for movies forever? GEORGE LUCAS. Just like everything else.

-ben

 
At 9:01 AM, Blogger Luke said...

Yeah I've been kicking around several post-apocalyptic notions for a while. The fan idea would work in reverse, you're right. The only problem with fallout is that it takes so goddamned long to cause cancer.

Even then it's usually in some bullshit gland like the thyroid.

Ah well, since this is going to be a seige-type war, I guess blowing fallout is as good as catapulting plague-ridden corpses over the castle walls.

And it's funny how you complain about your inability to write ben, when almost ever comment you have here would make a cohesive blog entry by any standards--especially my own, significantly lowered, standards.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home