Pages

Thursday, October 10, 2024

The Collapse CLXV: A Sweater Unraveling

 09 September 20XX +1

My Dear Lucilius:

I write this to you in the light of evening that is starting to wane.

The “vote” – I call it a vote, it was much more of a dis-spirited discussion – concluded not an hour ago.

We held it in the old storefront that we had Church in and the Fourth of July in over a year ago, one of the slowly declining store fronts from 80 years ago when this was a fully functioning town instead of the drive through location that it has become. The belief, I assume, was that by having a large space it would encourage people to attend.

The population hereabouts has always been a bit of a contentious discussion. The “official” numbers peg it right around 100 souls, plus those that live farther out in homesteads or ranches but are closer to here than anywhere else; the river that crosses Birch Creek is likely the “border” to the North and East and the other border runs somewhere between the edge of town and the creek that exists beyond it, a fluid border to the town that lies beyond, one of the biggest locally.

Of those 100 old souls that may or may not be around, a scant 30 were present.

Part of it makes sense of course: no use bringing children to an event that would make no sense or more than one from a household in some cases. Still, I suspect Young Xerxes and those who organized the thing had higher hopes.

The question was put to those in attendance: would we continue to stick with Kentucky City, knowing that we would likely have to support them at some point – as they would us - or would we, as Little City, strike out on our own?

Someone from the back of the room asked about the cities beyond us, all the way to the state highway, those that the Colonel and the Leftenant had gone on to. No idea, came the response from Young Xerxes. Yes, someone had been sent there and would likely be back tomorrow with information, but it would be good to have a decision for them when they came. And no matter what their decision was, ultimately we had to make our own.

A gentleman in the back stood up, one that could in no wise be other than one of the ranches in the area. He spoke for all of them hereabouts, he said. They were fine staying in association, but had no intention of marching to any sort of fight. They had enough problems of their own trying to get through the Winter; taking on another charity – the word he used – was beyond their capacity.

Others began to speak up. A few said they were going to stay with friends or relatives out of Birch (likely to the aforementioned ranches and outlying houses); the idea of being here in the Winter effectively alone was too much; best of luck to those that stayed. At least one was of the opinion that Birch should pull a Little City and go their own way – which was largely talked down, as we did not have near the resources or natural protection of that town.

Most sat, like me, remaining silent.

Young Xerxes made an impassioned plea, pointing out that there was strength in numbers and support. Yes, it likely entailed some support of other towns – but those other towns would be in the same position to support us. Our close neighbors, he said, were our best chance to make it to Spring.

In the end, there was not so much of a vote as a tired agreement – those that said they were leaving obviously did not really matter at that point, and those outside of town had little say. The motion “passed”, if one can call less of a roll call vote and more of a general sense.

Walking back to his house, Young Xerxes was clearly distressed. It makes a certain sense: he was very plugged into this community and these people and for all intents appeared that it was slowly falling apart. He had no count of how many would leave, he said, but it could be as much as 25% - which would make the town even emptier and even more vulnerable.

I walked with him in silence back to his house, listen to the sadness in his voice. I did not really have words, or at least words that would likely be of any use: what does one say in the face of understandable self-interest?

Sitting here writing the last words in the evening light before it goes dim, I feel more and more like we are a sweater, slowly unraveling. Can the thing be knit back together?

A sort of bland indifference is what we can seem to muster, Lucilius; we will see if that will be enough.

Your Obedient Servant, Seneca

21 comments:

  1. I am like Seneca. On the several boards I am a member of, I am mostly a silent member and often ribbed about my silence. But I'm not someone who offers up affirmations and I find 90% of what is said during our meetings are just affirmations of one person's opinion. Rarely is a dissenting opinion offered up and it is those that I most enjoy debating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, me too. My silence is somewhat legendary on such issues, except for people I feel terribly comfortable with. Part of that is because I am a pretty agreeable person for the most part; part of it is that I have learned to pick and choose my battles.

      Delete
  2. Nylon126:31 AM

    How many times will leaving a place be the best option? There comes a time to make a stand for your HOME TB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nylon12, there is a finite limit. But I am operating on a couple of principles here. The first is simply that the disruption has truly taken hold at this point; people are realizing that this really is it. The destruction of the Wheat - whether or not people counted on it - probably galvanized a lot of people, combined with the separation of another community.

      People will take the best chance they feel they have. Given the situation of being in a more exposed easily accessible location or perhaps a more defensible position with the possibility of additional food sources, it seems likely a certain number would take the best deal they thought they had.

      Delete
    2. I'm right about where Nylon12 is, TB. At some point you need to make your stand WHERE you stand. No one ever wins a war by constantly retreating, and that's just what Conservative America's been doing for some time now. There's also an intangible here; TRUST. Wherever you live may not be perfect, but people there KNOW you. They either trust you or they don't. You either trust THEM or you don't. Move somewhere else, and NOBODY knows you and many won't like you, being a "newcomer" and an "outsider." Trust will likely take longer than the time you have left to live. At this point in my life I'd rather make my stand where the weather is good, the growing seasons are long, and where I know the people and the territory like the back of my hand.

      Delete
    3. Pete, you cannot run forever, true. But in order to win, you have to define what "winning" looks like. And you have to understand what is crucial and what is negotiable. I would argue that the "Red" side have not done a good job of either.

      Example: I know of several individuals who are small government, limited taxes, economy people who see the disorder of society. They see something is wrong - but they will not vote for the Former Resident. It is obviously baked in now, but if victory could be defined as another candidate (in this example), would the Red side be willing to do that to win with someone else that would maybe enact 70% of the program but could win over more of "the other side"? (Again, baked in at this point so a theoretical question.

      Another example are the many issues that have effectively been "lost" in the culture war. They are perhaps not unwinnable but by means other than the legal and legislative system. It comes from the hard work of building trust and having conversations and moving the needle - in my view (perhaps wrongly), much like the Christian church in the first second century A.D. But too often I read of the equivalent of tilting at windmills or pursuing the same tactics to get different results.

      One of the most deplorable things of any authoritarian or oligarchic system is the concept that there is only one allowed answer, that of the dominant paradigm. And truly, that is how I feel with the group that is likely my preferred outcome: there is only one plan and if that plan does not work, bad things will be made to come to pass. That is no more persuasive to me than the other side arguing that somehow "democracy is at stake". Single solutions or the threat of total chaos may persuade some people, but I am finding it more and more dissuasive.

      Perhaps said a little differently, give me a vision of a desirable future, one that wins others over not by force of anger or words of belittling but of hope. We are desperately short of hope in modern political leadership and I see nothing in the current cycle that suggests that is changing.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous6:53 AM

    In those circumstances, I can see the persons point of leaving battles over scraps of others to be too much to ask. A loss of them to their family becomes a huge factor in the family's survival. In those circumstances, several family's living in a larger home - farm might have some benefits (many hands doing much work faster).

    The Bad Guys have a major advantage here. Find and pick off the outlying homesteads and gauge the response of others nearby. A quick response might change their mind. Or not. Nomadic bands have their own problems do deal with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon - I think the "strength in numbers" on a more agricultural and food producing location is some of the thinking here. Most of the towns in this region - like many U.S. towns - are not set up with defensible perimeters.

      The "Bad Guys" do have the advantage of picking off outlying homesteads - which is why I can imagine some of the homesteads looking for additional bodies in return for help. But likely those nomadic bands will not at all be self sufficient and so every encounter becomes a risk/benefit ratio calculation.

      I think the reality in this sort of situation is there is no one right answer and circumstances will determine a lot of it.

      Delete
  4. “The Second Coming” by William Butler Yeats comes to mind.

    The center cannot hold and what rough beast lumbers to visit.

    And

    Ecclesiastes 4:12
    New International Version
    12 Though one may be overpowered,
    two can defend themselves.
    A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

    I've been the gadfly asking folks if they are REALLY Willing to leave their homes undefended as they march out to "defeat" the bad guys(tm).

    And the gadfly who mentions that a typical American home is a fire trap with almost nothing to stop a bullet. Europe builds in stone and concreate because of war reminders we built for lasting peace.

    Walled Villages were built for a reason. It was a lot of work and time but deemed worthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Micheal, I chalk most of the current talk of "mountains of blood and rivers of skulls" to people that either truly are keyboard warriors or those who do not understand what an actual civil war looks like.

      As a species, we remain very much tribal. We have social media that spans the globe, yet generally associate even on it with those that hold our similar interests or hobbies or think like us.

      Civilizations build for the circumstances they find themselves in. One of the great issues of both the post Manzikert disaster of A.D. 1071 and the Danish invasion of Anglo-Saxon England of the Great Heathen Army in A.D. 870 was the fact that once the initial barriers were breached, there were limited secondary fortresses or towns and the invades (Seljuk Turks and Vikings) could just march about and ravage as they please. The Anglo-Saxons under Alfred the Great were able to remedy this with localized forts (which did make a difference); the Byzantines were never really able to do so.

      Delete
    2. Sorry unable to figure out a link of my comment to your response.

      Maybe I need more coffee. Maybe I was unclear.

      A undefendable situation will be resolved soon enough.

      Not to the benefit of the undefended as history continues to prove.

      Violence is the default of humanity under stress. Calling it tribal is nice but really doesn't matter when you're the new serfs/slaves, chattel or fertilizer.

      Thus, the comment that a friend far away isn't an asset when RIGHT NOW you need his support. Thus, the comment that walled villages was created.

      Architecture always fascinates me because it tells a story of history. I note your trips seem always to show various levels of walls built to defend. Even in scenic Japan the defenses were nice looking but solid.

      Delete
    3. Michael - Thank you for the clarification. I understand the context of your comment now.

      I will make one minor correction: the defenses of castles and castle towns in Japan were indeed solid, but historically these were not the case. Fortifications as we understand them now are largely an output of the gunpowder era (A.D. 1539 and following); by the beginning of the Edo Period (1600-1867) the form was set. Prior to that, it was largely wooden fortifications, mostly due to the fact that the corvee labor needed to construct such edifices required a strong localized government somewhat free of centralized control, which did not really emerge until the Age of War (Sengoku Jidai, generally considered to be A.D. 1467 to 1590). Japanese villages were generally not fortified, partially to prevent them from becoming strongpoints to be used by enemies (the village in the original Seven Samurai was an example). There were some peasant risings and even some short term "people's governments", but they never really made it long term.

      Delete
    4. And thus, the trouble local fortifications might cause gave rise to "Slighting" at least in England where a castle had to have its curtain wall demolished.

      Reducing it to a non-effective fortress.

      Delete
    5. During the Edo period, making repairs to a castle without authorization could result in demotion, banishment, or even death. The Tokugawa government brooked no potential rivals.

      Delete
  5. "Tribe up"!?. I'm a refugee from So. Cal. American society is atomized. (((They))) created a system to encourage families to "Strike out, find their way in the world". Don't live "where everybody knows your name".
    Rambos don't last, you need a squad at least. A platoon is way better.
    If the forces of chaos and evil are inept enough, we may come through this, but the fragility of "complex systems" doesn't bode well for us. It's relatively easy and cheap to kill refineries, power plants, fuel/food distribution facilities (DEW). Life sucks without food and electricity.
    Antifa, (actually paid and unpaid commies, socialists, students, illegal aliens, "military age" invaders, misfits, psychos, homeless) with a Gov./ Soros funded NGO supplied smart phone and a perceived grudge against the machine, well, they never went away. They are awaiting their next call to assemble or watching Craigslist for protest/crisis "actors". Admittedly, their area of operation used to be restricted to the big city, but thanks to Biden's handlers, we now have enough millions of entitled criminals, terrorists, leaches (30-40+?) to create havoc everywhere. I'm an everyday optimist, but a long term pessimist. Maintaining a positive attitude, the Lord is on OUR side. we may get burned out and murdered, but we still win. How's that for an uplifting ending? Of course, YMMV.
    Think I might need some rose colored glasses. Or a beer, after I fix my generator carb.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yeah, I'm socially and otherwise retarded.
      THANKS for your blogging endeavors! I appreciate your fiction, travel logs, stories, family news, etc. Hope you keep it up!

      Delete
    2. T_M - Things can indeed look as bleak as you suggest. The complexity of the modern economy (and its potential breakdown, as this particular series hypothesizes), are to me the most concerning because they are the most likely to happen.

      What comes after that? I do not know. History suggests a number of potential outcomes, based on not only the society involved but the world around it: the breakdown of Classical Greece was different from the Roman Empire and different again from the Byzantine Empire or the end of Feudal Japan. What I can do best is, of course, pray and do the best I can based on my understanding.

      Delete
  6. Strength in numbers. I agree, yet Seneca and his town have the disadvantage of slow transportation, i.e. mostly on foot. To go help another town defend itself would be to leave the home town largely unprotected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not ideal Leigh - but it is the situation that I suspect many small towns would find themselves in, given the situation and modern towns. In their case they are spread out without any defensible barriers (literally a valley). And agreeing to a defense pact is precisely that: an agreement. I do not envy even my imaginary characters having to make those decisions.

      Delete
  7. This sort of reminds me when I took Philosophy as an elective in college. Our first assignment was to watch the movie, "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" and write a paper on it. I did and wrote the paper about what the movie was about. The next week in class during discussion, the entire class was bringing up analogies of what the movie meant in modern context and my poor paper was only about the movie and what happened in the movie. Later that day, I picked up my paper with a big red 'F' drawn on it and handed in my drop class slip for the professor to sign and ended up taking an Economics class instead. I never regretted that decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed - That feels like precisely the thing.

      This is my complaint about much of modern history and social theory: they cannot analyze it in terms of the time period and what things were like then but always in the context of modernism and modern sensibilities. Thus, only the new and modern is the only source of "truth" - but the modern is always changing.

      I find myself steering away from many modern histories now. I want to read the facts and determine my own opinions, not be guided by the author's view of how the ancients should have applied modern sensibilities.

      Delete

Comments are welcome (and necessary, for good conversation). If you could take the time to be kind and not practice profanity, it would be appreciated. Thanks for posting!