I've been thinking about this a bit, lately. Australia is in the middle of a massive flooding crisis (again), which has mainly affected rural areas. Yet it has been extremely noticeable that, each time this has happened in the last year or so, the media has been far more concerned (to the point of it almost being comical) with flooding in the respective capital city impacted, rather than the much heavier hit rural areas...
Population size and density plays into this. I realise that. As does proximity, with media orgs and journalists mostly being based out of the capitals. But it is so blatant, when it gets to the point where even specific "regional networks" are more concerned with the city than the country, and when regional areas are almost completely ignored, even when people actually die in the flood.
So there's that. Which is nothing if not representative of a trend that we have seen in this country for at least a decade.
But there's more than that - when the journalists do get out to these country towns (varying in size from a few thousand people to literally 100K), and interview the people there, it is immediately apparent that they see the world in a completely different way, both to the journalist asking the questions, and to most... "Elite" city folk.
They're not worried about climate change. They don't view these floods as "apocalyptic", or "the worst we have ever seen". They're just going about their business, trying to survive and get by, and actually banding together to look after each other, and the vulnerable members of their community. It's actually remarkably wholesome to see (what we see of it, which is not much).
This, in complete contrast to the city/suburban folk who got flooded out, who have... Already literally turned on each other, and started apportioning blame. Despite the fact that they are the ones the government mostly focussed on, and they got the most support, before anyone else.
This, despite the fact that people in those "rural communities" are poorer, less "educated", and generally... With worse health outcomes than people in the city.
It was the same during Covid, of course, but I've never seen it to quite this extent before. These are "the forgotten people", whose votes are generally discounted (because rural electorates, which get swamped by city voters) and who are, I have to be honest, largely ignored, by not just the media, but by... "City folk" more broadly.
Obviously you see this trend even more clearly in the US, and arguably the UK. I think this phenomenon is pretty much part of most "human societies", for at least the last 200 years or so, but it's still... Really jarring when you see it. The level of disenfranchisement be real. And we should really do better.
Arguably, this was a big part of the Trump phenomenon, and Brexit. And perhaps Meloni, and the recent Swedish election, even, too. It's just... Stunning, frankly, that the "elites" continue down this same path, even here, and don't seem to have learned a single fucking thing from those examples...
So yeah. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. I've been wanting to get that one out of my system, for days, since I really started to think about it, lol...
Oh in the UK its VERY noticeable, to the extent that more rural locations like Yorkshire and Lake District despise London and the bigger cities while they get looked down on.
Which is bad news for cities as shown during the lockdowns, they are completely dependent on them still producing food for them. If there was an attempt to disenfranchise would result in a cut off of services. Even the towns in these places in rural areas have the space to be semi self-sufficient but cities, they'll eat each other within a few weeks.
That's one of the main reasons why every war game scenario the U.S. military runs shows the establishment losing a revolution/civil war 2.0. The rural folks grow all the food. Cities are easily cut off. The government would be forced into policing its own supportors (city folk), to prevent mass starvation and rioting, while the rebels could move and attack where they pleased. Shipments of food from ouside the country couldn't maintain city populations, and transporting outside food would be insanely difficult for the government, given that it would have to travel through rural areas, on roads which are easily cut off and controlled by rebels, and since almost all truckers are right wing. The entire charade U.S. tyranny is built on would collapse quickly.
I think we're in an excellent political climate for a return to the Victory Garden. Suburban people should plow up their lawns and grow vegetables.
Flee the cities! Leave them to themselves and their harebrained politics; let antifa fags make their pathetic little chazz gestures, planting tomato seedlings on cardboard covered with potting soil while they loot and burn down the Safeway.
Market Gardens!
Something like 40 fucking percent of domestic produce was grown by families at the end of WWII. That they immediately stopped doing that is one of many things I've never forgive the """greatest generation""" for.
The fact so many stopped was stupid but there is still a huge drive for it
Any allotment land from in cities to even rural areas has a waiting list to it, and that waiting list is when someone physically can't do it anymore. They just ensure people are disenfranchised to do it in cities by space requirements mostly.