whatsgoingon

What's Going On?

On this page I am going to give my analysis on just what the hell is going on in world politics.
I believe that if I can find the right universal truths, the proper deductions can be made which will reveal the truth about what is going on in world affairs.

The Fundamentals:

Before examining just what exactly is going on in the world, a person needs to first understand the fundamental underlying truths that give direction to world affairs. First, in order to understand world politics, you need to understand people, which is very difficult in itself, which is turn is what makes politics difficult to grasp. So, we need to fundamentally understand people. Why do people do what they do? Why are people the way they are? What is human nature? Is every human being fundamentally the same or fundamentally different? Which is more important, nature or nurture?
In order to understand these questions, we need to start from the beginning. Where did everything come from? So far we know that we are on a sphere that spins around its axis and revolves around a star, which is one of many stars revolving around the center of a galaxy which is one of many galaxies which are part of a universe that we have not found the ends of yet. Some people believe that there is an intelligent creator which made the universe, some believe there is no supreme being; just stuff that exists and moves around. The people's belief as to what the universe is and how it got there affects who they are and what they do. Once a person makes sense of the world around them, they begin to act accordingly.

Nature vs. Nurture:

    There are some that believe people are born knowing nothing, the mind is like a blank page. As a person progresses through life, they learn things about the environment around them and they interact through it. These are the beleivers in nurture. There are others who believe that people are born with all the knowledge they are ever going to need. People are born knowing what it is they should be doing with their lives. They know what the environment around them is for. These are the beleivers in nature.
     The nature argument is best supported by the explantation of instincts. When a baby human is born, it usually starts to cry. It also knows how to suckle on its mothers breast for milk. It recognizes the breast and it knows how to suck out the milk and swallow it into its stomach without accidentally inhaling it into its lungs. There are also those that argue that mothers recognize distict characteristics in different children even while they are still in the womb. These characteristics carry with them throughout their entire lives. This means that the way a person is has been determined not by themself but by something else. This can be explained by genetics.
     Evolution should also support the nature argument. The genes people have were evolved over time which continually adapt to the surrounding environment. People know what their environment is and what to do in it because their genes were made specifically for that environment.

Free Will vs. Determinism:

The nature/nurture argument is similar to the freewill/determinism argument. According to determinism, everything that exists in the universe moves along a definite path in time which cannot be altered. Just like in a game of pool, when the Q-ball first strikes the triangle of balls, the path each individual ball is going to take is dependent on where and how fast the Q-ball strikes. All of the molecules that exist in the universe are moving on a definite path which will never be altered. Since our brains are made of molecules and our thoughts come from our brains, our own thoughts were already determined and there is nothing we can do about it. What thoughts we're going to have in the future have already been determined too. If one could map out all of the molecules in the universe, one could see what thoughts everyone is going to have in the future. But, if you know what thoughts you are going to have, you would be able to change them. This is the paradox of determinism.
According to the free will argument, people's minds come up with thoughts spontaneously, outside of Newtonian physics. People's thoughts cannot be predicted because either they come from a mysterious undiscovered source or they come from nowhere. People themselves are the causers and the creators of their own thoughts. Most of all, an individual is solely responsible for their own thoughts.

Personality:

A personality can be defined as the set of characteristics that make up the essence of a living being. Some believe that animals, as well as humans, have personalities on an idividual level. This is in accordance with the variation of species in the theory evolution. Just watch how in a litter of new born animals say, cats or dogs, there are different personality traits among them. Some will venture away from the mother early on, some will stick to the mother for as long as they can. Some will be more shy, some less. Different ones will eat different kinds of foods. In humans, identical twins who are separated at birth have been shown to have similar careers and personalities when both have been completely separated across an entire country for an entire lifetime.
If evolution is all about survival of the fittest, certain personalities evolved because they were better equipped to survive and reproduce. I believe that the two most basic traits that will be around as long as life itself are these two: the extrovert and the introvert. I think that both of these form a balance among living things. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages. The extrovert is more likely to find new resources that will bring more offspring. The extrovert will also be the first to hit new dangers and die. The introvert will be able to see extrovert die and learn from the extroverts mistake. The intovert will miss out on new resources which would increase reproduction capacity.

To Survive and to Prosper:

    The Greek philosopher Plato believed that society was man writ large. In other words, a society is a macrocosm of an idividual. A society and its characteristics is the same as an idividual and his/her characteristics. They are both essentially the same thing. According to evolution, life is all about survival. A living organism does whatever it has to in order to survive, otherwise it dies and disappears from existance forever. In order for an organisms population to survive, individual organisms must reproduce. As long as the organism reproduces before it dies, the species will survive. In the natural environment, there are many different species competing for survival, only the strong survive. Each species is going to expand and continue to expand until something contains it. Expansion ensures survival of the species because if one area is struck by disaster, only a portion of the species will be wiped out. An expanded population is bigger, stronger, more diversified. The human species is the same way, that is why humans have populated and dominated the entire planet right now. The human species is divided into several groups which compete against one another for land and resources. Each group does what it must to survive and to expand until something contains it. Because individual societies purpose is to survive and expand, and since society is man on a large scale, man's purpose is to survive and expand himself. An individual survives by doing whatever they must in order to survive. As long as one is alive, one can reproduce. Since part of human's purpose is to expand, they must reproduce in as large of numbers as possible and/or aquire more land and resources and spread out. They must get as big and strong as they possibly can. This is why humans pursue wealth. Wealthy people are more powerful, they are stronger. This is also why wealthy people can't seem to get enough, they've always got to have more, to become more powerful. Prosperity equals power.
     In summary, human's have two main goals: to suvive and to prosper. Survival is the priority, prosperity is secondary. Both are pursued mercilously at all costs, with the exception of some human beings who choose not to make these their priorities. I would like to know what percentage of all humans don't survive and prosper at all costs. This is where morality comes in. It's as if people are determined to survive and prosper yet could have free will which can override these priorities. However, the evidence seems to show that in human affairs, survival and prosperity are the only priorities.

I can't possibly do wrong:

Aristotle believed that people never think of themselves and being bad. A person almost always percieves themself as being good and everything that this person does is morally right. Evil is something that only occurs in other people, usually enemies.

The Gang Mentality:

There is a natural tendency for people to form gangs. These gangs usually have a leader. They also tend to show their unity by somehow displaying certain colors or physically gesturing is some way. This could be the result of a herd mentality. Some street gangs in the U.S. display membership of their gang by wearing colored bandanas. All of the countries in the world display their membership with their flags. People can be members of multiple gangs at once; they seem to be interwoven into a complex. This is part of what makes international affairs complex. This could explain why mafias exist. It could also explain why people play sports in teams, which in turn have their own colors. Members of a gang are expected to be loyal to it and to be willing to die for it. The needs of the gang precede the needs of an individual. Members are family, they are the closest associates of one another. They usually care for one another. Other gangs that exist are considered rivals and must be eliminated. Violence is expected when different gangs interact. Gangs tend to fight over land, each one will expand as far as they can until something contains it. This could expain why an air war is never good enough in a conflict between rival groups, what matters is that an army is physically occupying the ground. Control of land is a top priority.

When gangs are in conflict, nobody is allowed to be neutral:

Individuals or groups of people that are caught between fighting gangs are either killed or forced to move elsewhere. If one studies the history of conflict it will be apparent that those try not to take a side are usually killed or conquered. Hence the saying "If you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem." or "you are either with us or against us". Even during the American Revolutionary war civilians who did not want to fight were killed in their homes by suspicious combatants. For the most part, neutral people aren't killed intentionally but if they get in the way of two gangs, each gang considers itself more important than some strangers or nonmembers. Paranoia is common during conflict and can lead to violence. That is part of why secrecy is important in politics; you don't know who to trust.

When people can't be changed anymore:

All people eventually come to an age where their mind is made up about their place in the universe. At this point their mind can't possibly be changed anymore. Does this point usually come at the same age for people? Or can it come at any time in a persons life? This is a point of no return. They have made sense of the world around them and act according to their worldview. People that have passed this point are probably less likely to get confused about things. Does passing the point of no return give people more confidence about things? After all, since they have made sense of everything, there are few mysteries in life and all the important are known. This should result in confidence about things.

Resources are a top priority:

Resources are a part of prosperity. They empower a society with the fuel and materials it needs to survive and prosper. That is, they provide it with energy and mass. They are necessary for its existence. They are the physical materials that a society is made out of, including people, since people need food with is grown on farms which are optimized with more resources. Since resources are necessary for survival and prosperity, they are pursued mercilessly at almost all costs. The only way they won't be pusued is if the cost of obtaining the resources is equal to or greater than the gain of resources. (It always costs resources in order to gain resources.)

Openness vs. Secrecy:

    Some societies like to make themselves transparent while others would prefer not to be seen. A society becomes secretive when secrecy is necessary for survival. If it comes out into the open, it will be destroyed. Secrecy also as the advantage that intentions and future actions can be concealed. For example, one society can secretly plan on aquiring resources from another one and then attack this unsuspecting victim when the time is right. The advantage in being secretive is that the enemy will be softer and easier to kill when it is not prepared for an attack. Secrecy is necessary in conflict. To quote Machiavelli - "There is no greater plan than one which is concealed until it is ripe for execution". This is because strategies are necessary in war and if an ememy knows a strategy, it can adapt and be better prepared.
     Openness in a society has the advantage that there will be more trust within it. Also, if individual can be openly creative with ideas, more resources can be created with new inventions.
     Why do some societies choose to be more open and some choose to be more secretive? What makes a person choose to be open or choose to be secretive? Why do governments tend to form secret intelligence groups? Where do secret societies (a society within a society) tend to exist and why? Does secrecy lead to paranoia?

No one expects to lose a fight:

Whenever someone gets into a fight, they almost never expect to lose, they always imagine themself winning. Who would get into a fight if they know they are going to lose? The problem with this is that when two people are fighting, only one of them is going to win. What does it mean to win in a fight? Winning usually means that one person somehow admits defeat, one person beats the other very bad then just walks away out of mercy, or one kills the other.
In international politics, there are plenty of different groups engaging in conflicts with other groups. Some of these groups are going to lose. Why do so many people engage into battle knowing that there is at least a small possibility that they might lose? The answer could be that everyone is a little bit arrogant and overconfident, not even considering the possibility of losing. Losing is something that happens to other people.

The Importance of Space:

The more space that separates people, the less conflict between them. The less space, the more conflict. In other words, crowded areas tend to have more conflict. There was a test done with lab rats in which the population density was varied while the behavior of rats was observed. The more crowded they became, the more violent they got. This should mean that people are more violent in cities than they are in open, rural areas. Is this true?
If every different human society was separated from each other by great distances and each of them had an overabundance of resources, they won't have much incentive to fight each other. However, in today's world, the space, or at least the percieved space between all the different groups of the world are much smaller than ever in history. It should follow that we will soon be engaged in the most violent clashes the world has ever seen. There just isn't enough room for all of us. We can't separate from each other and mind our own business, we must interact with each other on a daily basis wether we like it or not. This could be a pretense for serious conflict. As the U.S. seeks to expand its culture and influence, different societies that would like to mind their own business cannot. No one can escape globalization. We are forced to look at each other and the things we don't like about other societies every day. If one person despises something about America, they must look at it every day wether they like it or not. This is not a good scenario for global stability.

Centralization vs. Decentralization:

    In human affairs, it is important to know what things are centralized and what are decentralized. Mainly the centralization of power. Why are things centralized? That is a very broad and extremely open-ended question. Centralizing power to a point gives that point control over a certain sized radius around it. What are some examples of centralization? The galaxies in the universe are centralized around a center. So are planets around stars and moons around planets. Molecules have some centraliztion. Can we then conclude that centralization occurs in human societies because men are mere imitators of nature? This would mean that decentralization of power in humans is impossible. Unless of course people had some way to get around the natural laws of centralization. All forms of life are organically based on centralized structures. The brain controls the organs, which are made up of cells with nuclei that tell the rest of the cell what to do. Computers are made with a processor which tell the cards what to do, these cards have processors that tell the parts of the cards what to do.
     Is it possible that centralization is the only way that stuff can possibly happen? Think about it: In order for a reaction to occur, an action needs to occur. That prime action must have a POINT of origin. If everything in the universe travels in waves - waves are the result of something happening at a point and the effects radiating outward away from that point - then it must be concluded that waves cannont exist unless something in a center created them; in other words, there must be centralization for anything to exist. Maybe this could be proof for a creator. This might also be an explanation for why the U.S. is supposed to be so democratic yet the power within it is so centralized and many people don't even participate in the political process. For a lot of people to participate in politics, there must be something that overcomes universal laws - free will which violates the laws of physics? For a truly democratic society to exist, the laws of physics themselves must be violated.
     A society with no power centralization would be like an organism without a brain. Can life exist without nuclei? A decentralized society would not be as able to make quick decisions because the cells within it won't obey the orders immediately. In times of conflict this could be a problem. A decentralized society would have to avoid conflict in order to survive. It can be concluded then that a rival, centralized society could view the decentralized as weak and vulnerable and will thus attack it in order to take its resources. It is this fear that drives Americans (and democracy) towards centralization of power. Also, since America is centralized it is more powerful than the Europeans (who traditionally have wanted to decentralize power), which the U.S. refuses to cooperate with in international affairs. This is only going to recentralize European power in order for the Eurpeans to be able to defend themselves from America. If there is any hope for decentralization of power, it will occur within America and Europe or power will never be decentralized because it is impossible.

Passivism vs. Aggressivism:

    A passivist is defined as someone who does not inflict any harm on any living animal. This includes, but is not limited to, humans and insects. A passivist does not believe in hate, violance, or revenge. An aggressivist is defined as someone who does whatever they want, when they want. The aggressivists actions are in tune with the laws of evolution; survive and prosper at all costs. All human beings lie somewhere on a spectrum between these two extremes.
     Any passivist population is doomed to be annihilated unless there is some way around the laws of evolution. The aggressivists will always attempt to overtake the passivists. The only way passivists survive is if they violate their own principles of passivism and do what is necessary to survive.
     Capitalism is closer to aggressivism because in order for one business to make money, it must take money from another business; it must inflict harm on another business and take its assets/money/customers.
     The wealthier a nation is, the more aggressive it has been in its accumulation of wealth. A nation cannot become wealthy in relation to other nations without inflicting harm on people. For example, the U.S. could not have become wealthy without slave labor. It could not have expanded its borders without wiping out and/or moving the native populations. It could not have established its borders without fighting Mexico and Canada, killing and/or injuring people in the process. Every great nation that has existed, depended to a significant degree, on slavery. If not slavery, than some other form of exploitation of people (low wages, poor work environment, etc...). This includes Greece, Rome, Egypt, Spain, France, England, China, Russia, Japan and India.
     If a person does not want to inflict harm on others, than this person should avoid all material things, because behind every material thing is blood. Especially expensive things.

Links:

Al Siyassa Al Dawliya - International Politics Journal (Egypt)

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws