Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Destroying a dominant culture is usually the first step to destroying a dominant military.
by StFerdIII
A truism of development is that military strength begets security, which births civilization and culture. You cannot build a modern, advanced society in the absence of security or under threat of constant annihilation. Military preparation is the manifestation of a confident civilization. Its repudiation is the affirmation of its demise.
The premise of security – defense and military strength – presents obvious connections to the rest of society. In the modern world military matters are often scorned at. Politicians and educators, and others who are divorced from what creates and defends a civilization, heap scorn on military concepts. For these fantasists militarism is a type of modern barbarism, a part of various conspiracy theories, and alien to the noble savage’s ideal of living in harmony with the earth goddess, or the Marxist dream of a one-world model. Such vapidity ignores what constitutes a civilization.
For example domestic food production and readily available and tradable foodstuffs, will determine the size of your population and therefore of your military potential. Economic strength and trading prowess will shape how advanced your society, your technology and by extension, your military will be. The greater the division of labor and the deeper your capital markets the more expansive your military [and by extension, your ambitions]. The relation of food, capital formation, trade and capitalist divisions of labor, will go along way to determine your technology, the culture and societal composition – both political and cultural. This is as true today as it was 300 years ago.
Europe for example in the early modern period was able, after the 17th century, to increase its population. This occurred due to improved agricultural techniques, more and varied crops [the potato, and maize were introduced at this time], a climactic warming period [caused by the huge use of SUVs of course]; and improved hygiene and sanitation which decreased plague, early deaths and altered the balance between births and deaths in favor of the former. With a surplus population and a richer society, expansion could be followed.
This population strength gave rise to other innovations. Division of labor in various manufacturing processes proceeded spinning off gains in wealth, new products and new services. New markets outside of Europe were discovered and tied in to the home market, through remarkable advances in shipping, trade, and administration skill. Capital markets deepened. A derivative of this early modern capitalism was the formation of more advanced military technologies and methods. In part, along with other cultural and economic factors, this military predominance allowed Europe to conquer the world.
But only societies which are confident strike out to take over other cultures and civilizations. Such animation still exists in the West but is possessed by a dwindling few. Kipling’s white-man’s burden is now considered racist slander and affronts the one-world model of man. Better for the elite and the media the deconstruction of white civilization and the return to savage barbarism replete with earth goddess cults, multicultural relativity, and anti-modern policies. At least the food will be varied.
The lack of military strength in the West is a marked feature pointing to a stormy future. Even the US, the supposed military colossus is anything but. What military colossus gets tied down in a weak, fractured, immature, and savage country such as Iraq? If the Americans wanted to, they could have, and should have, won this so-called ‘war’ in one year. [Sorry but car bombs and the odd Al Qaeda skirmish hardly deserve the name of a war.]
The Americans have 1 million men [and unfortunately women] in the armed forces. Only about 500.000 can engage in combat with a maximum of 350.000 active at the same time. This is the same as the Romans could field at the height of their empire on a third of the current US population and with an economy – largely agricultural – that might be 5-10% of the current size of the US economy. In other words the US is spectacularly under-militarized by a factor of 3-4 times. The current US deployment strength should be roughly 1 million men able to fight concurrently with the latest technology and armaments. This would translate into roughly a 10 million person total military commitment or less than 5% of the available US manpower. [There is roughly a 8:1 ratio between support, logistics, supply workers and frontline fighters.] This is not a large commitment and would likewise consume about 5% of total GDP.
Outside of the USA, the military picture is hopeless. Hapless Europe with its one-world, pro-Islamic, UN tote bagging, socialist model is utterly beyond repair. The European military could not even handle the 1990s Balkan crisis resulting in 300.000 dead and many more wounded and displaced. In Canada the same sordid picture arises. A spend of 1.5 % of GDP, with a 19.000 man police force trying to be a military, under-funded, mal-equipped and constantly sneered at by those who believe the UN should run all affairs and solve all conflicts [which they are so obviously proficient in]. Such nations don’t take history, their culture of the maintenance of a unique and incredibly anomalous civilization seriously.
One great annoyance with the self-important chattering Marxist and socialist is the double-talk. They clamor for the one-world goddess Gaia cult for example, without explaining how a return to the stone-age will maintain civilization. They deplore all military activity yet they don’t advise us how to defend the modern world against fascist Islam.
They rationalize Muslim atrocity [with 300 million dead over 1300 years of constant warring] by blaming Israel, yet they don’t seem to realize that the 642 A.D. sack of Jerusalem by Muslim armies rather pre-dates the 1948 founding of the modern Jewish state. Nor do they explain the 150 million dead Hindus and Buddhists, killed in 1100 years of violence without equal in human history [are the Jews and Americans responsible for that too?]. They tell us that any military action without UN sanction is immoral, without bothering to explain why Arabs are allowed, without UN sanction, to attack Israel 5 times, or why Iraq and Iran in lieu of UN resolution violations are able to carry on business as usual with no repercussions.
Cultures are not relative. Unfettered Muslim immigration [I once ran into a Muslim woman in Moscow with 7 children immigrating to Canada, and wondered if the same accord would be given to a white Russian non Islamic female with no children], cultural destruction, low-cultural fascination – are all reflections of a declining civilization. The abhorrence of the military – at least in reality through actual under-funding and a lack of materiel – is a derivative of a society that has no will.
A strong military does not mean war, nor does it express jingoism. The Marxist elite have spent 50 years convincing people that wars are immoral. They are not. Wars are fought for many reasons. Trade, gold, land, slaves, resources, minerals, power – all play a role. But one thing historically is clear. War is a natural human preoccupation. Without a strong military empires, states, cities and cultures die. That much is obvious.
If one disagrees than perhaps you can read the rise and collapse of Byzantium Constantinople. Taken by the Turks in 1453 it was a pale imitation of its former self – a Christian empire eaten up by the Muslims who preyed on the carcass of a militarily weak state. It is an oft repeated story.
