All societies, organically and inevitably, divide themselves into two Factions: one Faction, the Police Authority, seeks to abuse the second Faction, the Children of Purity; and, it is only through the interplay between these two Factions, Authority and Purity, that Higher Civilization, that is to say, the Civilization of the Moderns, called in the time of Cassius, "that lofty happenstance," can develop; yet the Police Authority punishes, not for any abstract or rational reason behind the punishment, but, simply put, to amuse itself; venting frustrations upon the Children of Purity causes the revolution of the inevitable, which is the same in any country, playing out the grand drama of, to be brief, sadism, in the great divide between Police and Children which develops in any agricultural society which has tamed the auroch; that is to say, sadistically, insensible of greater purpose, like a sentence which never, nay, which can never, terminate itself, much akin to the standard principles of Homeric...
-Nassim P. Rodham-Spengler, 2124 A.D., from an alternative multiverse three probability windows removed from our own.
The Necessarily Inane Distinction Between Rural v. Urban
The purported division between "rural" (such as we call it here) and "urban" (again, such as we call it here) peoples is less dramatic than we, with our faces in the muck, tend to appreciate. Which is better: Coke or Pepsi? Branded or generic? The Whopper or the Quarter Pounder? How rural is farmland with a modern well, connected to the power grid, generating interest in its all-natural honey through updated flash ads on the city's website, maintaining elk-hunting rifles with gun oil shipped from South America and ammunition assembled several states away out of a mystery-meat-style collaboration of Chinese minerals and expired Austrian patents and German machinery licensed to an American factory? Is five minutes from a Target "rural"? How about forty-five? Okay, okay, a "Target" with blue painted over the red and fewer pictures of Oprah inside (but still some pictures of Oprah), otherwise known as a "Walmart"?
The railroad used to define, for some people, urban, in contrast to now, where a railroad is often supposed to be rural, and where "rural" means not only power and water and grocery stores, but connection to a network of paved roads that dwarfs the most grandiose estimates of the railroaders of yore. In a few years, the rural lifestyle will perhaps be distinguished by coffee bistros and wifi--a comparatively sharp contrast to the neuroweb and soylent lifestyle of the then-urbanites, and as humorously not-rural as today's rural diners and wired telephones, which are embarrassingly urban under slightly-older definitions.
I'm not saying I don't understand the desire to pretend there's a way out. It's noble, perhaps, after the aliens have taken over, to believe that your hole in the hills is unknown to them, and that they couldn't possibly survive without you. Of course they could; of course you need them more than they need you, and the last Waco demonstrated that power centers on urbanity, whatever the fantasy of the clinging farmer.
Even so, it is a difference passionately believed in, and, when funneled through an atrocious microcosm of self-absorbed perspectives, it seems like a significant cultural divide. Cities hold the awful welfare leeches, yes, but rural communities hold, in the same proportion, the people who can't compete in the hideous ideatic posturing that, like it or not (not), represents more effective power to accumulate and defend resources than a clutch of sharpshooters in a field of sweet corn. If you don't feel that way, there's always the opportunity to find out who's right by skipping your property taxes for a few harvests in a row.
The Non-Inherency of Urban and Rural Conflict
Anaesthesia of the mind flits about this issue: this lofty distinction we've learned to make between "city man" and "country man," or nowadays, what we like to call "urban" and "rural." As we discussed above, it's only a distinction within the mental confines of this day and age, like a distinction in fashion--growing more trivial the farther back you get. In true self-absorbedly anthropological fashion, we even now analyze ancient cultures through their digsites with an eye to fabricating a division between rural and urban, neglecting to notice that the division between a rural doctor and a rural janitor remains more profound than that between an urban janitor and his rural counterpart.
These tensions provide the battlefield for a lot of memetic mischief on the part of many of our twisted friends. Moldbug, of course, but also Oswald Spengler, who was Moldbug before Moldbug. This type of nasty little worm--common in every period since infection--uses the inherent tensions between those who consider themselves rural and those who consider themselves urban: uses them to make the fracturing of civilization seem an intrinsic, inevitable process of that civilization itself, rather than due to the influence of outsiders. Spengler receives inordinate amounts of praise now for heaping scorn upon urbanites at the expense of more genuine rural people, which makes him seem insightful to those enchanted by the Trump v. Clinton county-by-county result maps.
The problem with Spengler, though--as always with these grand cultural theorists who discover degenerate nihilism inside the fabric of everything good and decent--is that the evidence is as against him as the scope of his work is myopic. Spengler tells us that the urban and rural divide is inherent in all cultures, and not related to outside influences; why, then, did it take Cortes and his Semitic handlers to impose this divide upon the Americas, or Charlemagne and his Semitic handlers to impose it upon Evropa? Europe's peoples did not bend-knee to inbred boy-raping kings prior to the coming of Yaldabaoth; instead, they were valorcratic civilizations of farmer-warriors, able to tend and toil, and manage even early Rome before the helpful viziers and merchants turned the Senate into the home of aloof financial fancies eager to import foreign labor. Northern Europe lasted even longer. The Semitic influx is a crucial factor in all of these scenarios, just as it was in the urbanization of Korea, China, Japan, Australia, the Americas, and even sub-Saharan Africa; many of these places had cities, but the distinctly cosmopolitan nature of looking down upon mere laborers of the land, and caring more about international finance than about domestic well-being (and domestic production) did not arise out of those peoples themselves as some sort of accidental, inherent, or natural consequence.
Spengler's lofty world history, like Marx', is a cheap three-act plot structure with exposition, rising action, and climax (all plagiarized, naturally), blaming all the phases of a people's history upon the people's natural choices. How does a rude cosmopolitan elite, detached from the visceral means of production, arise? Spengler, like Marx, would have us believe that it is not only natural, but unavoidable: the urbans are doomed to become slovenly detached cosmopolitans and forget from where they have come and how they got there, while the rurals are doomed to hate them for it.
However pleasing the idea of loathing the idiotic cosmopolitans, these theories are noxious lies. What Spengler does--and Taleb, Moldbug, Cernovich, Rand, Roosh, Alinsky, Gramsci, Marx, and all their foul cohort of predecessor-masters and future automatonish followers--is re-frame the clash for survival among biological competitors as a one-sided battle between the victims themselves. If you eat poisoned food and become sick, they say that it is due to a defective biology, and with painstaking (or sloppy, depending upon the desired audience) detail, examine everything about the body except the contents of the stomach. If Europe falls, they blame "those faggots in Brussels," but when asked how the men of Brussels came to be such [insert pejorative]s, there is no answer. Certainly the nominal leadership in Brussels has a significant problem, as does the rest of the world, but it is not something that came to be as naturally as the rising of the sun. Black Lives Matter is not a spontanenous, inevitable movement of the poor, but a creature wholly reliant upon the race perceptions, media attention, financing, and municipal-executive-level permissiveness that allowed whining and threatening and riots, which were, so very recently, not permitted, even in racially-preferenced situations. To say that isn't to say that this particular movement is good or bad, but that it could not have occurred without the influences which created it.
So too the crumbling of the world's societies into the battle of almost all of the world ("rural") against the tiny centers of international finance and the urbanite fodder with which it surrounds itself ("urban"). Prior to the immediate competition of species, these things did not occur. The colossal study that Spengler, and his predecessors and successors, so often repeat, of the world's historical inevitabilities, is a lie which takes the unwanted, avoidable by-products of war, and renames them the natural process of birth and death. Spengler is the poisoning physician who tells you, "Lie still. Don't fight--it's hopeless. It's chronic; it's genetic; it has no known cause. I am helping you resist it, but it is inevitable. Give in."
All along, they would tell us, "Rome is too big; it is too difficult to administer." Or, "Greek is simply too mountainous. You can't hold it together." And, "The Nile is ultimately too unpredictable. Even with all its bounty, you can't hold a civilization together on such unpredictable flooding." Wherever, whenever, however: there will always be a mighty mind, there, to explain how the destruction of a place, or of a people, or of anything good and growing, was the pure, natural, predestined result of that thing itself.