Thanks for taking the time to reply - even though you should be working. Heh.. No worries, I have many fingers in little pies that constantly need attention, but blow them off to do something else...
I'm trying to come up with a way to make this sound apolitical and diplomatic. Problem is, I've never been diplomatic. Ever. Always been a "this is the way it is and if you don't like it, then you'll have to learn how to deal with it" type of person. My old commanders either loved me or hated me, depending on if they wanted an honest opinion vs. wanting sycophants and yes-men. Far as I'm concerned, it's my job to point out flaws, problems, possible options or - worst case - when an idea is a horrible one in order to keep my superiors from screwing up royally...
Sigh... okay. Here we go.
Hawks vs. doves, post-catastrophe? The hawks will have a very strong advantage - and that is simply the will do to what the doves won't. That means applying decisive violence where needed and where it will accomplish the most, no matter whom is on the receiving end. The doves main strength, I think, is sheer numbers and the willingness to act as a large group. Which dances on the edge of collectivism (which I despise) so we're just going to avoid that whole bear trap...
Hawks have a heirarchy, same as anywhere else. Thing is, they have strong personalities - often, most are natural Alphas - and when you get a bunch of strong personalities together, there is always conflict as to leadership. There must be some over-arching power to control them - either through respect or fear, or both. If the doves can ever get organized - usually by their own hawk - they stand a good chance. If they don't get organized? Then they're roadkill.
Hate to say it, but in the age of Radical Individualism (excellent saying I heard once: Radical Individualism is the handmaiden of collectivist tyranny), even a dove leader will have to resort to Peace via the bayonet at some point. From what I have seen - and what history bears out - is that only when a population is close to 100% homogenous, are they self-policing. The countries on Earth that still are, they have smallish militaries and genuine Peace Officers policing the citizenry - and often, they are superfluous. There is no need for over-militarized "Law Enforcement" (which, interestingly, has "force" in the name) and bloated standing armies.
The US has always been held up as a shining example of economic strength built on immigration, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing it here in the UK. Maybe it takes several hundred years. So far the experiment with multiculturalism doesn't look good to me.
Multiculturalism - that is, that all cultures are the equal of all other cultures, everywhere and can simultaneously exist in the same place at the same time - is, frankly, a fraud. It is an extension of the fraud of Egalitarianism - the belief that everyone, everywhere has the exact same strengths, weaknesses, intelligence, etc. Trust me, that is as phony as a 3/4 dollar bill.
You simply cannot have people from multiple cultures - some overtly hostile to each other - living in the same space at the same time, sprinkle fairy dust on them and expect Nirvana. The only way "peace" is maintained is if there is a greater power that all sides fear more than their hated rivals. So long as they fear Official Blowback more than a reprisal attack from their rivals, there is an uneasy "peace" - which means you're back to Peace via the bayonet again.
"The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that -- however bloody -- can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave." - Lysander Spooner
The homogenous population avoids the above by removing the majority/minority paradigm entirely.
A word about the US and our immigration. Again, I am trying to to maintain an apolitical position - this is just what has happened in the US historically. That saying it is unpopular (bordering on heresy) isn't my fault nor my problem. What was that about in a time of tyranny, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act?
The US was founded by Enlightenment thinkers - Englishmen. They were white, European and some flavor of Christian. The North was populated by the largely English/puritan types. The South, by the Scots and Irish. The old animosity between those groups literally sowed the seeds of our own war. I do not call it "The Civil War", as the South had no interest in anything the North did - we simply wanted to go our own way. The war began when Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South. Fort Sumpter wasn't the start of the war - I explained that to my son in this way: Imagine you bought a house. Not only do the previous tenants not leave, but they invite all their family and friends over with guns, and they shoot at you when you set foot on your own property. Lincoln had already abandoned all of Texas without firing a shot, so precedent had been set. Fort Sumpter was Southern property, the Federals illegally squatting on it.
But I digress. Back to US immigration.
The successive waves of immigrants to the US were almost 100% European to a man. There were small populations here and there of others - the Chinese allowed to immigrate to work the railroad. Small populations of Jews, etc. But almost all were white, European, and some flavor of Christian. I do not address American blacks since they were not brought here as 'immigrants', nor were there historically any great waves of them 'immigrating' in the conventional sense. If you took a trip somewhere you had never been before, and you saw some guy walking around, you automatically knew several truths about him - he spoke English. He was a European or his parents were Europeans. He was a Christian of some flavor. There were bonds there - a common culture, and if not a common culture, then the foundations for one. It was relatively easy for them to assimilate.
Even so, there were several moratoriums on our immigration where it was suspended entirely for long periods of 20 years or more, to give those who had arrived time to assimilate.
And this continued until the 1965 Immigration Act, which basically rewrote our immigration policy - since no legislation ever stays the same. Someone is always amending it, tweaking it, "fixing" it... if you look at the US crime rate over the last 100 years, it is more or less stable until the middle 1960's. After which, it skyrockets and more or less stays high. There are other factors in play other than just the immigration issue, but permitting - even encouraging - millions of people into this country (and the greater West) who want nothing to do with our culture, have no interest in assimilating and are sometimes openly hostile to us is madness.
Example: Kitty Werthman, back in 1985, infiltrated a "peace march" in Switzerland and cozened up to the genuine Communists - under gentle questioning, they admitted their long-term goals were first to take South American countries like Nicaragua and Honduras. Then move into Mexico. Why did they want Mexico? They didn't. They just needed it for their main goal - that being, to "take back" the American Southwest.
How? That sounds like a revolution. You'd need a virtual army to pull it off.
Their answer: "You Americans are so naïve. Your churches are doing our work for us."
Remember, this was 1985. When asked when this 'invasion' would take place, they said "That depends on who your President is. Probably 2004, but no later than 2008."
I'll let you digest the above before continuing on... it's a very complicated subject, but I find it fascinating (in the same way driving slowly past a very bad car accident is 'fascinating')...
“Life is slavery if the courage to die is absent.” - Seneca