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 wrongly predicted that if nations were united by trade, ideology, communication, and industry humanity would coalesce into 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 an unelected panel of bureaucrats. Nations that didn’t want to be part of the family had to be invaded, destroyed, and murdered until they agreed to be ‘saved’.
Humanity is not predisposed to unity.
Crucial to our evolutionary behaviour is the desire to seek out new lands and settle. As soon as a tribe breaks away, it immediately and automatically begins to change its customs, language, behaviour, and – after several thousand years – appearance. Each cluster of humans becomes a distinct tribe with unique solutions to survival. This happens within large civilisations too, where cities, states, and suburbs develop identities. It is one of the reasons human civilisation survives across a broad range of environments.
Evolution selects for human diversity and against homogeneity.
The success of the British Empire was to allow its territories to embrace their cultures and develop, largely unimpeded, by the parent state. These loose bonds of protection, rather than servitude, resulted in a Western empire unparalleled in human rights, commerce, and strength. Yes, many ‘children’ of the British Empire sought independence, but it was more a case of maturing into fully-fledged nations presenting a story of empire-building success. Compare this 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 a similar fashion. Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Erectus (the oldest and most enduring human race), Homo Floresiensis, Homo Heidelbergensis, and others were more diverse than us. Contrary to casual belief, all living humans belong to a single human race. Homo Sapiens are the most successful geographic conquerors. Regional groups look different because we split into Clines at every opportunity. Globalism is an attempt to fight against the natural inclination of our genetics and hold us – by force – under a monotonous State-approved cultural design.
The natural result of this genetic reality is that humans are fiercely competitive. In nature, competition means conflict, where tribal wars serve as evolution’s constant refinement of human solutions. The winner, and all their advancements, get to continue.
Politics is a recent evolutionary response and an attempt by organised civilisations to extend periods of peace for the purpose of arming themselves sufficiently for war. The more complex human existence has become, the more aware we are of the cost of competitive violence. Our current philosophical situation reflects humanity’s desire for peace within acceptance of war’s necessity. We are in conflict; emotionally, ideologically, and practically. Some of our political solutions to ‘war’ have made war worse, particularly the pursuit of Utopian ideals.
Peace is the temporary calm, purchased in gallons of blood and maintained by the threat of violence or sheer exhaustion from previous wars. Regardless of how civilised we imagine ourselves, our beautiful, technically proficient and energy-efficient cities fall in an instant. Citizens of every class end up on the ground together, covered in soot and stumbling through the rubble.
Don’t get comfy or think you can ‘Netflix and Chill’ your way out of the 21st century.
The trappings of safety are a veil lifted from every civilisation at the moment of conquest. Our choices are to stand and fight, or kneel in surrender. If we decide to give the West away, she will make a beautiful bride for tyranny.
After the first and second world wars, meddling bureaucracies were created with the intention of maintaining peace. In doing so, the United Nations and its failed predecessor, the League of Nations, ensured the next world war would be more catastrophic than the last. Demanding absolute peace is not a reasonable premise for humanity. As with all Utopias, its pursuit exaggerates the harm.
Regional disputes resolved with localised battles were prevented by the United Nations. The tensions behind unrest were not solved, only delayed, and added to a pool of rising hatred that – like a monsoon caught behind a dam – erupt at once from a single crack.
Even with the benefit of hindsight and the screech of war, political commentators continue to examine the geopolitical bark with a microscope. They cannot see the trees, let alone the forest, of global calamity.
It is probably too late to adequately prepare for the third world war. The Australian government has been tripping over itself, begging and borrowing whatever it can from its allies.
War calls our bluff. Nations with nothing to play with perish swiftly or create hasty alliances. To survive you have to be either nimble, impenetrable, or terrifying. Lacking these qualities, Australia tried to be ‘neutral’, forgetting that neutrality only works if your nation doubles as a bank vault full of stolen goods. As for pacifism, that simply marks you as a future snack for whichever superpower is closest.
The most important lesson of the 20th century was that appeasement does not work.
You cannot offer aggressive expansionist powers tasty hors d’oeuvres and hope they’ll be satisfied in an all-you-can-eat empire-building buffet. As regimes gather momentum, usually under the guidance of a power-mad individual with a tsar complex, they are driven by the glory of war. Fighting and winning form the backbone of their political power and peace has no role to play unless it is the complete domination of neighbouring countries.
We must be careful not to accuse realists of warmongering. The question is not whether or not to fight, it is when to fight.
Historical strategists who have assessed the situation and realised that war is an inevitability of the current regime structure are not ‘pro-war’ – they are attempting to shorten the approaching war.
A participation award in a global conflict looks like one of China’s ‘autonomous’ zones with every school, business and home knelt under a portrait of Xi Jinping. While there are still some adults left on this global stage, the military threat from Russia and China has to be assessed in 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 limit for China. Protecting the sovereignty of these nations has nothing to do with the quality of their politics. The West is not ‘affirming’ the contents of their regimes or the beliefs of their leaders.
The preservation of Ukraine and Taiwan is about telling Putin and Xi Jinping ‘No!’ with the hope that the sheer force of that ‘no’ will put a stop to further conflict. And yes, that smack might require a war that’s offensive to modern sensibilities – but it will be a much smaller war than the one facing the world if Russia and China are allowed to maraud around the map, levelling up into unstoppable monsters.
Alexandra Marshall is an independent writer. If you would like to support her work, shout her a coffee over at donor-box.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.