Have you ever wondered about why people always bring up the past when trying to describe the future? Let me run you through a parable that might apply to current events.
Ancient myths have Helen of Troy, (or Helen of Sparta depending if you’re on Team Menelaus or Team Paris) being first kidnapped from the Gods, and then married off to the winner of a competition between a number of kings of antiquity.
Once Menelaus won the contest, he and the other contestants entered into a pact which forced all their city states to go to war against any interloper which abducted her. This turned out to be a strangely forward-looking movie, because almost instantaneously, Prince Paris of Troy abducted the half-divine bride and made for the city of Troy.
This “launched a thousand ships,” as put by Marlowe, and the now-Hellenistic Greek states collectively declared war on the city-state of Troy.
Forever after, Greece was “Helena,” and Greek things were described as “Hellenic”—all as a result of Mycenaean marriage pact.
Now, why would you enter into a pact which forces you to go to war with people who abduct a bride? In antiquity especially, there was no surer way to gain access to new natural resources and food supplies and tribute from foreign nation than by sailing across the ocean and smashing their armies and walls into the floor. It’s prima facie proof that you could just take their finite resources and people for slaves if that’s what you want to do, but you’re willing to let them chill over in Troy as long as they pay you a percentage.
So, pledging to try to regain ol’ Helen from anyone who captures her is basically a wager that whoever captures her a) isn’t one of the city states in the pact, because wow dumb move and b) has stuff you want and can be overcome by the collective city-states in the pact.
I am trying to describe to you how a military alliance works. The problem is that Helen of Sparta/Troy was a concrete person. In our current day, we don’t really have that. Beautiful women are all over the place, and we’re no longer in an evolutionary state where it’s a big deal. Instead we have ideals.
The problem with ideals, of course, is that other people also have ideals. You have to imagine a world where everyone has a Helen—even if they’re not married to her, they’re pledged to protect her. It’s amazing, isn’t it, that so many “women” in history have led to so many millions more corpses strewn across forgotten battlefields?
It’s not their fault, though.
Listen, the UN wasn’t invented to spread globalism. There was one overriding concern when the UN was formed, even if the Americans were dying for it to be a way to spread democracy. The concern at the time was to prevent a third world war.
To do this, they apparently decided that the traditional method for starting wars reaching all the way back to the possible formation of Greek city states should totally be tried again, because history is a terrible way to make decisions.
So over and over again, leading up all the way to the present day, super-pacts have created massive wars and loss of life. From Helen to today, the looming danger the world faces isn’t individual states pointing rockets at each other. If that happened, individual states would destroy each other with rockets, everyone else would read about it on the Internet or watch livestreams of the devastation and probably decide that that sort of thing wasn’t worth it and then stop electing the “war” candidate.
So fast-forward to the present day. Germany and Canada have troops in the Baltic States to attempt to counteract “Russian aggression,” and the United States has forces in Syria and the Korean Peninsula for “human rights” and “anti-proliferation” reasons, respectively.
There’s only one viable counter-argument. What happens when a nation is dead-set on starting an international war? I mean, the German ubermensch mentality wasn’t going anywhere unless a bunch of Nazis were crucified along a major highway in Germany, maybe. Japanese militant Imperialism, at the same time, also wasn’t just going to vanish overnight. Both philosophies were incredibly militaristic.
I’m going to, by the way, totally gloss over the fact that most international wars spring from unfair trade deals after localised conflicts. Like, as an example, both Germany in the period after the First World War, and Carthage after the First Punic War were treated like garbage. The Allies and Rome both demanded a massive, legitimately exorbitant price in terms of reparations. Both acts sparked a second war; the Second World War and the Second Punic War, respectively.
The key to stopping wars like that is globalism. The problem is that the globalism has to be grassroots. It’s not a forced arrangement, and it’s not an arrangement that supports state interventions, like laws and things. It’s an economic one. Remember that almost cornerstone principle of history? It goes like this: when goods move across borders, soldiers don’t.
In other words, when everyone everywhere can talk to anyone anywhere with their iPhone while sipping on their Starbucks, we are making serious progress. Nobody’s going to elect to go to war with other countries where other people are peaceably sipping on their Starbucks and chatting on their iPhones. We’re already seeing an incredible amount of scepticism bubbling up about getting involved in foreign conflicts, most notably in places with iPhones and Starbucks.
North Korea, I should mention, is really down on Starbucks and iPhones.
So what are we to make of all these tidy white crosses where soldiers used to be? All this cratered, ugly landscapes where wars were fought?
Helena’s ghost haunts all these locations, and she is the siren song of another world war. Today’s pacts, like NATO, the UN, the Commonwealth, the CIS, various Islamic affiliations and trade ties are all operative and they create a web of conjoining alliances and tendencies which we haven’t really seen since just before the First World War.
The right idea for each country now, as it might have been in literally every single instance in past history, would be to withdraw from all such pacts and peacefully trade with one another. This prevents them from being drawn into a massive war.
Our problem, again, is Helen. Today, Helen goes by a number of names. She goes by human rights to some people, capitalism to others, democracy to still others, and anti-proliferation to yet more.
We use these strange concepts instead of another man’s wife to embed ourselves in far-reaching, potentially disastrous alliances which obviate the eventuality of total destruction. Put another way, historian Gwynn Dyer has frequently said that if any conventional military exchange between nuclear powers were to occur, it renders the possibility of a nuclear conflict inevitable.
The problem we currently have? Nuclear proliferation is inevitable—that means that eventually everyone will have nukes, and will have at some point entered into conflict with someone else. Technology isn’t slow, and it spreads faster than anything. What we’ve been trying to do is buy enough time for defensive technologies to emerge which might prevent nuclear delivery systems from reaching hostile targets.
Nuclear material, of course, has to be transported to someplace in amounts which can be combined into a critical mass (which explodes). This is always done with a missile. So the idea isn’t to stop nuclear technology (there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle), it’s to find a way to intercept or render missiles carrying nuclear technology harmless. This is why you always see protests and screeching about when anti-missile defenses moving around the world.
Once a particular side becomes less vulnerable to nuclear technology, it makes people think that that side would be more inclined to use nuclear technology. Sort of like having bulletproof armour makes you more likely to join a fire fight.
Currently, the US is in North Korea to try to stop the North Koreans from becoming a nuclear power. It’s all to delay the inevitable somewhat.
But why are Canada and Germany camping out near the Russian border when their time and resources could be better spent at home?
Globalism, my friends. And globalism is becoming a word that the left hates when people use—which is exactly why it should be used as much as possible. The only reason they could be upset about it is if it described something with accuracy, partial accuracy, or incidental accuracy. The Russians are notably anti-globalist. They like sovereignty and regional power, and are relentlessly self-interested and conservative.
Russian “aggression” involves not letting in migrants, not bothering to do anything about the Ukrainian civil war, and recognising the results of apparently democratic elections like the one which allowed the Crimea to apply to join the Russian Federation.
This is aggressive to a globalist like Justin Trudeau or Angela Merkel, both of whom appear dead-set against countries being self-determining. This is why there’s a huge problem with Poland in the EU, who are refusing to accept migrants—there are, in fact, punitive fines coming their way because they won’t accept a proven source of rape, murder, and high-crime rates into their country.
Marine Le Pen running for President right now in France is also a serious problem, as her platform—while being very much on the left—promotes French sovereignty.
Unhappy as they are with Ms. Le Pen, they’re way less happy with Russia, who is ruled by a man who has flouted globalist thought at every juncture, and played former President Barack Obama like a used violin in nearly every single confrontation.
That’s why there are German and Canadian forces in the Baltic states.
Helena has convinced them that their own interests are secondary concerns to the primary ideal of globalism. Even as globalism seeks to create global peace, therefore, it sparks the strife which might end the world.