Ok, sure, blood and butchery inside one or two generations if required is hideous and will hurt, but in the expansionists mind it's a small price to pay for an eternity within a communist or Islamic world paradise.
So why haven't the expansionists done it? Why haven't they overrun us for our own good? Obviously because they can't. The modern free(ish) world has a military might that only the suicidal could dream of challenging (well, head on at least). So the expansionists stay low, waiting, and if possible growing stronger.
Their latency which brews in the underground is what we in the West are at war with. We're too classy to just genocide them, so we keep them on a leash instead.
You're a soldier:
All of us work, in part, to maintain our standing army. Indeed, the only time any nation can say it's at peace is when their army is no longer required. Since the beginning of recorded history we have never been there - at least not for any appreciable period of time.
So the fight is on. The propaganda departments tell us we must work hard and be all that we can be. They even tell us that commercial success is the measure of the man. But why? Taxes. Dominant war machines cost money.
So when you go to work (often far beyond what the exertion is really worth) the government harvests your labour to maintain its war machine, directly or indirectly. You're an economic soldier. You are at war, living in a still-threatened reality.
But, guns aren't being fired and bombs aren't going off? So what. A hiatus is no peace. The latency is there and so is your army.
Golden ages:
Golden ages happen but they are inevitably short. They could be defined as a time of plenty, where no one's child has to starve. Golden ages are wonderful but temporary, and specifically because no one's child is starving...
Hence, population pressure quickly creeps in as successful fertility leads to scarcity. The tension builds, ruthless competition follows, and the periodic culling sprees (called wars) stabilise population to resources...
And then from there, neurosis from war trauma entrenches into the cultures. Goodbye golden age - hello Sparta. The warrior becomes the hero. Life, again, will be short and brutish. The poverty-line will be the norm.
Religious wars:
You might think that so many wars are religious, but I would argue otherwise.
A prosperous society always goes soft over time, which means less abuse and most critically less child abuse (child abuse is the mechanism by which humans turn their children into wilful warriors). The less neurotic and more placid the population, the less it can be controlled with religious dogma of the type that cannot survive a questioning mind. Religious dogmas are driven by fear, and non-neurotic people are less inclined to react to fear-triggers. Nonsensical ideologies do not survive - expansionist (war monger) religions then reform or die.
Hence, crude religion is only an outgrowth of waring and hardship, and later a rationalisation for it. Ultimately, prosperity (or lack of) is the principal driver of war.
Avoiding our waring future:
Current technological advancements will automate about 90% of jobs over the next decade or two. The world economic forum (WEF) have expressed this also. This means that we are about to move into another golden age, which will in turn lead to a massive baby-boom. Unless, that is, our governments--or more realistically the players behind our governments--continue to take some direct control of the human future (see here).
The truth is, we can no longer afford an uncontrolled population explosion. The entire planet will end up being a farm (only) for a then mostly vegetarian 100-billion strong population, and within only a few generations.
And then, with unhampered fertility we will eventually have global wars, though they will be wars that we cannot afford to have because nuclear, or worse, will be too easily accessible to just about anyone soon enough. Who wants to be driven part-mad with hell on earth anyway? We've been there too many times already.
We must have active population control, like China, and on a global scale. We must also defend against gross over-consumption. We can't allow a grand mansion for every man, etc, just because he can afford it. The planet can't take that and it's stupid regardless. Glutenous over-consumption doesn't make people happier on a substantive level. If we want to see true wellbeing then the most important focus, by far, is child abuse and avoidable infantile damage. That is the real global poverty that needs to be dealt with.
Controlling for these problems will necessitate a given level of world government (see here) as a defence.
From here, and only here, we might pull it off: A sustainable warless golden age, albeit artificially regulated to avoid the demons that would otherwise come after it.
From here, the only thing missing is the toughest social-political problem of all - dysgenics. If natural selective pressure collapses, so might the strength of our gene pool. That too will require executive management (see here).
------------------------------------------------------
Additional note: Thoughts on the Elite:
Who are the elite? Well, it used to be the territory of conspiracy theorists to suggest that there are incredibly powerful and concentrated financial entities who own the mass-media, and countless infrastructures, and directly and indirectly control leading politicians. It looks like it's not so much of a conspiracy anymore? (good documentary here)
Ok. Without going too far into this, I will say that we can know that people like Bill Gates and organisations like the Rockefeller foundation take population control very seriously. They have made open speeches on this topic, and for good reason...
Are these players, and people akin to them, working their hand to manage the world so we don't become our own worst enemy? Maybe. I think I would if I were in their position.
The hard truth is that global humanity must directly confront the problems of population stability, sustainable resource consumption, and as I've said earlier even eugenics to fight dysgenics. But are we too precious to go there? If so, we've just legitimised a controlling elite. They can morally justify managing a humanity (non-democratically) if it refuses to manage itself.
A democratic elite?
My personal ideal is not to have an elite whose thinking is run by in-house group-think, but instead to have a democratic system that is strictly controlled for merit. In short, this means every man and woman can vote but not without a licence.
The licence is obtained by doing a comprehensive (though interesting and accessible) online course on politics and economics, etc, that must be first mastered and passed within reasonable boundaries. If you're going to vote on policy that affects everyone then you have a responsibility to demonstrate that you are not entirely ignorant, and that you take the act of voting most seriously.
This, I believe, would be the most ideal system that rightly harnesses democracy yet with a strong focus on merit to vote. The people who can't be bothered doing the course will not vote. That's probably for the best.
-Andrew Atkin
I agree with PragerU on this, completely. Thank heavens the Yanks are the dominant war machine. We could do so much worse.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.prageru.com/video/who-should-win-the-nobel-peace-prize