The Trojan horse of globalism is the extension of the world’s constant regional battles into terrifying wars that encompass the Earth.
The Kumbaya Brigade incorrectly predicted that if nations were united through trade, ideology, communication and industry, humanity would become one big happy family. Originally marketed as “international socialism”, it was never about world peace – it was a clumsy attempt at political domination to keep sovereign countries under the thumb of a bunch of bureaucrats not elected. Nations that did not want to be part of the family were to be invaded, destroyed and murdered until they agreed to be “saved”.
Humanity is not predisposed to unity.
The desire to seek out new lands and to settle is crucial to our evolutionary behavior. As soon as a tribe breaks away, it immediately and automatically begins to change its customs, language, behavior and – after many thousands of years – its appearance. Each group of humans becomes a separate tribe with unique solutions to survive. This also happens in great civilizations, where cities, states and suburbs develop identities. This is one of the reasons human civilization survives in a wide range of environments.
Evolution selects for human diversity and vs homogeneity.
The success of the British Empire was to allow its territories to embrace their cultures and develop, largely unhindered by the parent state. These loose bonds of protection, rather than servitude, resulted in a Western empire unparalleled in human rights, trade, and strength. Yes, many “children” of the British Empire demanded independence, but it was more about becoming nations in their own right with a history of empire-building success. Compare that to the level of violence and terror required to keep European states within the USSR, or modern China’s surveillance system and ethnic prison camps in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Tribalism is not unique to Homo Sapiens. The extinct races of humanity fractured in the same way. Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Erectus (the oldest and most enduring human race), Homo Floresiensis, Homo Heidelbergensis and others were more diverse than us. Contrary to popular belief, all living humans belong to a single human race. Homo Sapiens are the most successful geographical conquerors. Regional groups are different because we divide into Clines at every opportunity. Globalism is an attempt to fight against the natural inclination of our genetics and to keep us – by force – under a monotonous state-sanctioned cultural design.
The natural result of this genetic reality is that humans are fiercely competitive. In nature, competition is synonymous with conflict, where tribal warfare serves as a constant refinement of evolving human solutions. The winner and all his progress can continue.
Politics is a recent evolutionary response and attempt by organized civilizations to prolong periods of peace in an effort to arm themselves sufficiently for war. The more complex human existence has become, the more we are aware of the cost of competitive violence. Our current philosophical situation reflects humanity’s desire for peace in acceptance of the necessity of war. We are in conflict; emotionally, ideologically and practically. Some of our political solutions to “war” have made war worse, especially the pursuit of utopian ideals.
Peace is temporary calm, bought with gallons of blood and maintained by the threat of violence or the exhaustion of previous wars. No matter how civilized we imagine ourselves to be, our beautiful, technically competent and energy-efficient cities fall in an instant. Citizens of all classes end up on the ground together, covered in soot and stumbling in the rubble.
Don’t get comfortable or think you can “Netflix and Chill” your way out of the 21st century.
The trappings of security are a veil lifted over any civilization at the time of conquest. Our choices are to stand up and fight, or kneel in surrender. If we decide to give the West, she will make a beautiful wife for tyranny.
After the First and Second World Wars, meddling bureaucracies were created with the intention of keeping the peace. In doing so, the United Nations and its failed predecessor, the League of Nations, ensured that the next world war would be more catastrophic than the previous one. To demand absolute peace is not a reasonable premise for humanity. As with all utopias, its pursuit exaggerates the evil.
Regional disputes resolved by localized battles were avoided by the United Nations. The tensions causing the unrest have not been resolved, only delayed and added to a rising pool of hatred which – like a monsoon caught behind a dam – immediately erupts from a single crack.
Even with hindsight and the cry of war, political commentators continue to examine the geopolitical bark under the microscope. They cannot see the trees, much less the forest, of global calamity.
It is probably too late to adequately prepare for World War III. The Australian government has tripped over itself, begging and borrowing whatever it can from its allies.
The war calls our bluff. Nations that have nothing to play either perish quickly or form hasty alliances. To survive, you must be agile, inscrutable, or terrifying. Absent these qualities, Australia has tried to be “neutral”, forgetting that neutrality only works if your nation doubles as a safe full of stolen goods. As for pacifism, it just marks you as a future snack for the nearest superpower.
The most important lesson of the 20th century is that appeasement does not work.
You can’t offer flavorful aggressive expansionist powers appetizers and hope they will be satisfied in an all-you-can-eat empire-building buffet. As regimes gain momentum, usually under the leadership of a power-mad individual with a czar complex, they are driven by the glory of war. Struggle and victory form the backbone of their political power and peace only has a role to play if it is the complete domination of neighboring countries.
We must be careful not to accuse the realists of warmongering. The question is not to fight or not, it is to know when to fight.
Historical strategists who have assessed the situation and realized that war is an inevitable part of the current regime structure are not “pro-war” – they are trying to shorten the coming war.
A prize for participation in a global conflict looks like one of China’s “autonomous” zones with every school, business and home kneeling beneath a portrait of Xi Jinping. Although there are still a few adults left on this world stage, the military threat from Russia and China must be assessed against the cold reality of the personal greed of the men in charge. Ukraine is the line in the sand against Russia, and Taiwan is the boundary for China. Protecting the sovereignty of these nations has nothing to do with the quality of their politics. The West does not “affirm” the content of their regimes or the beliefs of their leaders.
Preserving Ukraine and Taiwan means saying to Putin and Xi Jinping “No! in the hope that the sheer force of this ‘no’ will put an end to new conflicts. And yes, this slap might require an offensive war for modern sensibilities – but it will be a much smaller war than the world faces if Russia and China are allowed to maraud around the map, turning into monsters. unstoppable.
Alexandra Marshall is a freelance writer. If you want to support his work, shout him a coffee at the donor box.
Do you have something to add ? Join the discussion and comment below.