A personal and cultural reckoning told through the lens of a rural hometown""where tribal instincts, inherited fear, and nostalgia collide with modernity. I'm exploring the urban-rural divide not as a matter of geography, but evolution--and asking whether exposure, empathy, and truth can outpace the machinery of fear.

::::::::

I come from a small, rural town in Wisconsin-- the kind of place where the high school mascot is sacred, the churches outnumber the stoplights, and the local diner still offers political commentary with your scrambled eggs, all filtered through a Reagan-era lens of rugged individualism and bootstrap theology. It's a town that raised me, yes-- but also one I outgrew, not out of arrogance, but out of an insatiable curiosity that was simply not compatible with fences and familiar last names.

My childhood was an oddity in that place. While most of my peers stayed anchored in the gravitational pull of local norms and traditions, my parents handed me a passport and pointed outward. Road trips across the US turned into train rides through Eastern Europe. I was the kid who collected fossils and insects instead of baseball cards, who could name capitals but not quarterbacks. Later, I moved abroad. I pursued higher education. I immersed myself in history, science, philosophy, and the relentless pursuit of knowledge and understanding, trying to understand not just the world, but why people move through it the way they do.

And then, like some tragic protagonist in a novel about the perils of nostalgia, I came back.

If distance grants perspective, then returning to the town of my youth was less like coming home and more like stepping into a diorama. The streets hadn't changed, but I had. What once seemed wholesome now felt performative. The patriotism wasn't pride-- it was ritual. The friendliness wasn't openness-- it was surveillance. And beneath it all ran a silent, suffocating current of fear: fear of change, fear of the other, fear of being left behind.

This divide isn't just geographical. It's evolutionary.

For 95% of our species' existence, we lived in small, kin-based bands where survival was contingent on cohesion, predictability, and suspicion of outsiders. Tribalism wasn't a flaw-- it was a feature. It kept us alive. To be skeptical of the unfamiliar, to prioritize the known over the unknown, was adaptive. But we don't live on the savannah anymore. The threats we face are no longer predators or rival clans, but climate collapse, income inequality, and information warfare. Still, the reptilian brain lingers. And it does not care about nuance. It cares about belonging.

Rural America, in many ways, remains a living museum of this tribal wiring. In places where diversity is minimal and ideas circulate slowly, identity calcifies. Community becomes echo chamber. It's not that people don't think critically-- it's that critical thinking is punished. Conformity is rewarded. Outsiders-- literal or ideological-- are threats to the fragile cohesion of a community whose worldview has not been tested by difference but merely reinforced by repetition.

This is the root of the urban-rural divide-- not intelligence, not morality, but exposure. In cities, survival demands adaptation: to new cultures, new technologies, new ways of seeing. In rural communities, survival demands continuity. And so when the firehose of modernity blasts through cable news and social media, it's not processed as information-- it's processed as attack.

And the right wing has weaponized this brilliantly.

They've learned that fear is easier to manufacture than hope, and far more profitable. That a brain wired for tribal survival will always choose the strong lie over the complicated truth. That it's easier to sell paranoia than policy. In my town, like so many others, they claim to be patriots who love their country, but they'll vote for the man who promises to burn it down. They don't believe in climate change, but their crops are drowning and their wells are poisoned. They don't want to be ruled, but they're desperate to be led-- by someone who speaks in absolutes, who confirms their suspicions, who reflects their anger back to them like a funhouse mirror.

And this is the part that stings the most: these are not all bad people. They are people trapped in a feedback loop that exploits the very instincts evolution gave them to survive. They have been trained to confuse subjugation with strength, cruelty with conviction. To them, surrendering their rights to a strongman is not cowardice-- it is tribal loyalty. It is faith.

So when I walk those old streets of my youth now, it feels less like homecoming and more like fieldwork. I see not just neighbors but a case study in inherited fear. A once-hopeful people turned against themselves by a machine that knows them better than they know themselves. A culture that clings to its myths not out of ignorance, but out of necessity-- because without them, the whole house of cards collapses.

And the tragedy is this: the world they're fighting to preserve no longer exists. The 1950s never really happened-- not the way they remember them. What they mourn is not the loss of a country, but the loss of an illusion. And in their desperation to reclaim it, they have become foot soldiers in a war against their own future.

But still, I hope. Because if evolution has taught us anything, it's that adaptation is possible. That fear does not have to rule us. That our tribal instincts, while ancient, are not immutable. That exposure, education, and empathy-- slow, hard, and human-- can expand the circle of who we call us.

I don't know if my hometown will ever change. But I know I have. I know that what we choose to do with our understanding-- how we wield it, how we share it, how we live it-- matters more now than ever.

Because history doesn't just happen to us. We are it. In every conversation. Every vote. Every time we choose truth over comfort, connection over fear.

That's the long arc. That's the work. That's the hope.

Authors Bio:
I’ve always gravitated toward the deep end—where science, math, logic, and philosophy intersect and history’s long shadow looms. Not because I wanted answers, but because I needed better questions. Somewhere between Gödel’s incompleteness and Camus’ absurdity, I found a kind of comfort: the world doesn’t have to make sense to be worth fighting for.

I was that kid who argued with teachers—not out of disrespect, but because I genuinely believed truth was a collaborative project. I still do. Authority never held much weight for me; reason did. Patterns, first principles, contradictions—they’ve always lit up something in my brain. But it’s not just an intellectual exercise. For me, logic isn’t cold—it’s the scaffolding of empathy. History isn’t past—it’s the unfinished manuscript we’re all scribbling in. And philosophy? It’s the closest thing we’ve got to a user manual for being human.

I’ve worked in systems that confuse compliance with intelligence, where big talk replaces hard thought and people weaponize language to avoid meaning anything at all. I’ve seen how progress gets strangled by ego, how bureaucracy devours clarity, how the loudest voice in the room is rarely the wisest. And yet—I remain, frustratingly, stubbornly in love with humanity.

That’s the cruel joke of being an idealist with a realist’s field experience. I know how dark it gets. I’ve read the history. I’ve run the numbers. And still, I believe. Maybe not in utopia, but in the small, precise acts of truth-telling, thinking deeply, listening fiercely, and refusing to give up on what we could be.

I believe in hard questions, honest mistakes, earned wisdom, and the weird, miraculous beauty of humans trying to figure this all out together. I believe that a mind sharpened by logic can also be softened by compassion. I believe in dissent, in dialogue, in pushing back—not to win, but to understand.

If that makes me naïve, then fine. I’d rather be bruised by hope than embalmed by cynicism.