There is the issue of nuclear weapons. Especially if a bunch of doomsday cultists are in charge of them. The safest would probably be a US civil war, or at least an internal NATO conflict. Like the US invading Canada and getting eaten alive by Canadian and antifascist guerillas.
I’m lgbt, and my familty betrayed me for Trump. You want a war in the US? Send the rich. I’d sooner die alone. Many of us have no dog in the race. People is the US are depressed and anxious and exhausted. Most isolated. There is nothing for me personally to fight for.
Depression is natural. The brain needs time to unlearn old ways of thinking that have proven unhelpful, and during that time you genuinely don’t know what to think. Anxiety is natural, you are in an unsafe situation. Exhaustion is natural, most work you are doing is not going to serve you so it’s better to save your strength.
And isolation - well that’s you identifying what you need to do to find some safety and comfort, how you can start doing work that energizes you, how you can learn to think in ways that actually make sense. If you have nothing to fight for, you might as well go looking for people you can connect with.
Trust me, and more importantly trust your heart: you don’t have anything better to do.
And when you do find your people, then I am sorry but you will have something to fight for.
Nothing precludes nuclear weapons entirely, but having to nuke “civilized people” (i.e. whites) or “fellow Americans” is a tougher pitch than nuking China or Iran. And even if the US nukes the US, that isn’t as likely to escalate into a full world-ending nuclear exchange. I could even see the UK or France take a nuke to the face from the US without sending ones back because they don’t want to have their country glassed. Let alone if it’s Canada, Germany, or another ally of the UK or France.
Also, the US state has committed to exacerbating climate change to the point of human extinction. I see very few possible futures where the US state is not dismantled in the next 20 years where humanity survives the next 200. Exchanging a reduction of the chance of human extinction through climate change for a smaller increase of the chance of human extinction through nuclear warfare would be a good deal.
There is the issue of nuclear weapons. Especially if a bunch of doomsday cultists are in charge of them. The safest would probably be a US civil war, or at least an internal NATO conflict. Like the US invading Canada and getting eaten alive by Canadian and antifascist guerillas.
I’m lgbt, and my familty betrayed me for Trump. You want a war in the US? Send the rich. I’d sooner die alone. Many of us have no dog in the race. People is the US are depressed and anxious and exhausted. Most isolated. There is nothing for me personally to fight for.
Depression is natural. The brain needs time to unlearn old ways of thinking that have proven unhelpful, and during that time you genuinely don’t know what to think. Anxiety is natural, you are in an unsafe situation. Exhaustion is natural, most work you are doing is not going to serve you so it’s better to save your strength.
And isolation - well that’s you identifying what you need to do to find some safety and comfort, how you can start doing work that energizes you, how you can learn to think in ways that actually make sense. If you have nothing to fight for, you might as well go looking for people you can connect with.
Trust me, and more importantly trust your heart: you don’t have anything better to do.
And when you do find your people, then I am sorry but you will have something to fight for.
Thank you for that!
Neither of those scenarios precludes nuclear weapons use, unfortunately.
We’re pretty much all relying on the spirit of Stanislav Petrov for the foreseeable future, if we want humanity to survive.
Nothing precludes nuclear weapons entirely, but having to nuke “civilized people” (i.e. whites) or “fellow Americans” is a tougher pitch than nuking China or Iran. And even if the US nukes the US, that isn’t as likely to escalate into a full world-ending nuclear exchange. I could even see the UK or France take a nuke to the face from the US without sending ones back because they don’t want to have their country glassed. Let alone if it’s Canada, Germany, or another ally of the UK or France.
Also, the US state has committed to exacerbating climate change to the point of human extinction. I see very few possible futures where the US state is not dismantled in the next 20 years where humanity survives the next 200. Exchanging a reduction of the chance of human extinction through climate change for a smaller increase of the chance of human extinction through nuclear warfare would be a good deal.