Before we move on to the cube, let’s begin with the CW2 Square. The cube is best tackled in another step. Draw the square and label one axis Poorer to Richer. Label the other axis Darker to Lighter. Darker, for brevity, includes African-Americans, Hispanics and so on. Lighter refers to those of European ancestry. The two opposed meta-groups are the poorer and darker versus the richer and lighter, or whiter if you wish to be blunt. The richer/whiter have the power of their wealth, but counterbalancing that advantage is the fact that the poorer/darker have succeeded in wresting control of much of government power. This is so, even if most of their elected leaders are anything but poor or dark.
Thus, "[f]illing one corner of the CW2 Square will be the poorer and darker, who primarily are liberal and progressive Democrats who believe in a malleable 'living Constitution.' And in the other corner will be the richer and whiter, who mainly are conservative or libertarian Republicans who believe in the original intent of the written Constitution." Of course there will be exceptions to these general classifications, but Bracken warns against being pedantic and focusing on the exceptions: we are looking for the general groupings.
Now, let’s add the third dimension and shoot another axis out from the square to form the CW2 Cube. Label the third axis Urban versus Rural, or City versus Country if you prefer. This axis gives a geographical dimension to the meta-terrain, but there will be no convenient dividing line between the opposed sides as there was during the first civil war. It has frequently been observed that today’s red-blue political map is better understood at the county than at the state level. Even blue states like Illinois, California and New York are rural-red outside of their blue urban cores. Obviously, these urban cores are heavily populated but geographically small, with all that means to the electoral process today and to a possible civil war later.
Reviewing the model, then, "[m]ost of us live in the mushy, mongrel middle, far from the tips of the two opposite corners. But the centers of gravity of Civil War Two shall be as I have described: the relatively richer, whiter and more rural against the poorer, darker and more urban."
Applying Turchin's theories, more correctly we would see two groups of elites, no matter their skin color, drawing their support--their troops, if you will--from the two opposite corners.
In any event, Bracken includes diagrams and more discussion about using the conceptual framework the CW2 Cube offers, so be sure to check out the full article.
However, Bracken makes a point that we should pay attention to:
The second aggravating factor is the unstable triangle of the three-sided civil war. The Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims pro-vide a classic example. Each side of the unstable triangle will backstab yesterday’s ally at the moment they perceive themselves to be at a local disadvantage, or when they see an opportunity to wipe out an historic enemy with a new Final Solution. The unstable ethnic triangle in the United States will in many places be composed of black, white and Hispanic sides. By comparison, the old black and white social dichotomy was inherently stable, even when it might have been rife with injustice.
But this can also depend on where you live. Other groups may make up the third (or fourth or fifth) sides in such an ethnic conflict.
- "Matt Bracken on the Coming 'Dirty Civil War'"--Prepping 2.0. This is a podcast from February 2020. I have not yet had an opportunity to listen to it, but came across it when looking for the CW2 Cube article, and it seemed that it would be interesting.