I am laughing hard at the idea of "culture" making a difference when there is literally no food. when hungry all men act the same.
Yea, I am sure we will all be eating all that delicious and filling "culture" when the supermarkets are empty and the looting begins.
...Are you
deliberately being obtuse, or do you really not understand?
Your posts since this one suggest that it's the latter, so I'll try to explain it.
What a culture values, things like work ethic, independence, rule of law, respect for life, these things
matter for whether or not an economy and rule of law collapse. How these things are valued, what they are rooted in, these are
vastly different between Sri Lanka and the US.
On top of that, they're very different between liberal cultural centers, and pretty much the entire rest of the US, especially conservative cultural centers and rural areas and general.
As an example, you talk about hordes of city dwellers swarming out of the cities into the country to loot and pillage farms? Alright, let's talk about what that would probably look like,
culturally.
First off, leftist city culture promotes 'the government should solve my problems for me' as an attitude. This means that, in the first place, most people aren't going to want to actually do the work. It also encourages virtue signalling and not actually putting your own ass on the line, which further reinforces this. There are some who are more interested in the opportunity to hurt others than in not risking themselves, as we've seen with Antifa et al, but this is percentage wise a tiny portion of the population, and they also are
literally a mob that is used to only operating in places where the local government supports them, rather than opposes them, generally with little to no experience in using firearms.
Conversely, both rural and conservative culture independently lean towards getting shit done yourself, and being experienced with firearms. Rural/small town dwellers also have a higher tendency towards basic physical fitness, and much,
much more experience as outdoorsmen, on top of being familiar with the specific terrain that any engagement would take place in. These cultures are also more familiar with the importance of facing hardship, and with the idea that when things get tough, that means it's time to work harder, not quit.
Neither of these cultural descriptors are universal. You have exceptions in both cultural camps, as well as conservatives in cities and leftists in rural areas. The propensity one way or the other is
very strong however, and generally speaking those who have values that go against their overall cultural alignment are less willing to engage in extremist action, IE those leftists who are experienced with guns or value independence or hard work, are less likely to run with Antifa and the like. Similarly conservatives who hold a few leftist values are unlikely to join up with a conservative militia and go attack a city or something like that.
But this moves us on to another very important factor: Newtons laws of motion also apply to culture and lifestyle.
A group of armed farmers living out in small town and rural areas are likely to continue doing so if society starts collapsing. They're already there, they're already living the life they've chosen, and most of them will continue to do so. The same is true of city dwellers. Some from either group will probably move to the other lifestyle, but it's not going to be a huge number.
Rural communities are also less atomized, and as we've seen, Antifa and their ilk really don't give a shit who you are, if they decide you're a nazi, they'll try to mess you up regardless if you 'support BLM,' or are even one of the minorities they claim to be acting on behalf of. On the other hand, Joe the rural leftist is actually somewhat likely to take up arms in defense of his small town or his neighbors if an armed mob comes out to attack. If he isn't willing the first time, he (or others like him) probably will the second, because as the USSR and every other leftist hell-nation proved, they'll kill you just for living next to 'undesirables,' or perhaps in America the term will be 'deplorables.'
So, what is going to end up happening,
because culture matters, if a mob from a city of a few million goes out into the countryside to plunder?
The first time or two it happens, they might not meet serious opposition, because the people in the country don't
want to have open violence break out. They want lawful society, and at least some will try to talk rather than try to fight as a first resort. These people will almost certainly be killed and/or raped for their trouble, but if the plunder mob is actually led by one of the few hardline leftists who actually have moral principles, they might just lose almost everything instead.
After the first couple times though, the folk of the countryside will be watching and ready to fight.
What will that look like?
It'll look like experienced gunmen camouflaged, behind cover, shooting at a mob of disorganized and mostly inexperienced thugs. Do you know how many losses it takes for a trained military unit to be rendered combat ineffective?
Ten percent.
When you're getting shot at by someone you can't see, people are dropping left and right, and you're out there on the offensive, rather than defending your family, home, and livelihood, how easy do you think it would be to get you to turn around and run like hell?
For most people, the answer is going to be
pretty damned easy.
This isn't a universal scenario. This isn't an automatic scenario. Even if something like this happens, you might have the mob figure out where they're being shot at from sometimes and run down their targets successfully. My point isn't who wins and who loses.
My point is that
the entire thing is shaped by culture. Who is doing what, how competent they are at it, how willing they are to persevere,
all of these things are shaped by cultural values.
People don't 'eat' culture, but culture sure as hell can determine
whether or not they'll be able to eat, as well as what.
