FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Why Wars Are Becoming More Likely

The underlying force behind most developments we now see is very simple: overpopulation.  But there’s something more to it.  In a world that has had lowered levels of violence and modern medicine for awhile, there’s simply too many men.  Normally men die off at a higher rate than women which frees up some extra space.   Under these circumstances it’s easier to have a functional social contract where men cooperate instead of compete.  Without the usual forces of attrition, we end up with a massive sausage fest.   Add to that a declining economy, rampant elite overproduction, hostile state ideologies and it’s now hard for all but apex males to make it.  As the struggle for scarce success slots grows more intense, it drives coalitions of millions of men into direct competition for women and treasure.  As such conflicts grow in intensity, they eventually flare into open violence.  And of course, part of the deal is the violence clears out some of the dead wood freeing up some breathing room for the rest.  Anyone who doubts this principle has only to learn how the black plague ushered in a golden age in Renaissance Europe and Ming China.  When there’s just too many people, even randomly killing 1 out of every 3 improves life for the rest and allows people the space and leisure they need for innovation and achievement.  An environment always saturated to carrying capacity wallows in perpetual stagnation.  When there’s no more frontiers and empty continents to fill up, humans resort to other timeless safety valves, and when all others fail, war tends to erupt sooner or later.  The justifications people make up for history books come after the fact.

War is a gentleman’s agreement.  Two men who stand little chance of securing a pretty woman or property within their clan sometimes agree to risk their lives against a neighboring tribe to take control of scarce resources by conquest.  If both succeed, they both get a payoff, but chances are in war there will be casualties.  So in effect they wager that if they succeed one man will perish in the endeavor and the other reaps all the dividends.  They may fail and both perish of course, but they agree to take the risk because if they try to play it safe at home, they pass the rest of their miserable lives struggling for mere survival, trod on by the successful as unwanted surplus population.  Since the dawn of time, when the incentives are right, groups of men have made the gentleman’s agreement with the tacit understanding they are betting the other guy gets shot while they survive to profit from his efforts.  And of course those most closely related might behave altruistically with less reservation as worker ants devote their being to the genetic code of their queen.  Nature is harsh and living things must often undergo desperate measures against overwhelming obstacles to succeed and continue the species.  So until a transhuman era, humans will be thrust into the Darwinian melee by the necessities of competition for mates and scarce resources whether they will it or no.  Until then, only intelligent stewardship of human societies and the establishment of workable balances of power both internationally and internally makes peaceful times possible.  The foolish elites of Western nations have spent decades undermining a once stable system out of devotion to blind ideology and now act surprised when finally the inertia shifts and the system begins to tip towards entropy.

9 responses to “Why Wars Are Becoming More Likely

  1. esoterictrad October 15, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Except back then there weren’t a slew of videogames and a bunch of soy products being used to effeminate men.

    • Giovanni Dannato October 16, 2016 at 2:53 pm

      Even the best distractions have their limits. And part of the problem is for every high tech distraction or testosterone killer, there’s a high tech internet that undermines the official narrative as the printing press destroyed belief in infallible priests and monarchs. It cuts both ways.

  2. King George III October 15, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Because every White country exists under the same religion, in the same cultural milieu, every White country has the same low fertility, meaning every White country suffers the same critical shortage of prospective mates, and because every would-be prospective mate in every White country lives in the same cultural milieu, every would-be prospective mate in every White country is a used-up slut, or near enough as makes little difference.

    Thus, the only prospective mates available to poach are Africans and Middle Easterners.

    No thanks.

    P.S. Patriarchal races don’t fight over women. Patriarchal races don’t fight to secure reproductive rights. Patriarchal civilizations control their women, suppressing animalistic female sexuality, enforcing chastity and monogamy, allocating one virgin bride to every not-insane, able-bodied man willing to work, so women are not a scarce resource in patriarchal civilizations, for patriarchal races, for patriarchal men. Patriarchal men in patriarchal civilizations fight together for more land and more wealth and more subjected peoples in order to provide for the wife and children they already have back home. This is the basis of the mass-mobilized, highly advanced, regimented, state-sponsored organized warfare practiced by patriarchal civilizations. This is what motivates comradery, brotherhood, self-sacrificial warfare—the warfare of Leonidas’s 300 or the warfare of Xenophon’s ten thousand—warfare which is White warfare.

    The warfare you envision, the warfare practiced by matriarchal peoples, men living under matriarchal social orders, is not particularly advanced, regimented, is not sponsored by states, matriarchal peoples not having states, and is not particularly organized. It looks more like a small band of dark-skinned men swooping in on a village, setting fire to some wooden village shacks, killing all the village’s children, killing any adult males who happen to be hanging around, fucking the village’s fertile-age women, and towing them back to camp.

    • Giovanni Dannato October 16, 2016 at 2:45 pm

      The patriarchal order you describe no longer exists in the West, a major reason why we are head for an age of neo-tribalism. Soft polygyny already is the reality for the majority non-married population. For every player there’s a crowd of incels. Not too different from the pressures that produce suicide bombers in Middle East cultures.
      Mass communication will allow tribal level organizations to exist on a larger scale than they used to, which is why we are moving away from the nation state and towards the tribe state. Men with no mates at all will poach them from wherever they can find them. I’ve always been perplexed with holiness signalling about inter-racial sex. It’s women’s mandate to picky about those kinds of things.

  3. Larry October 15, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    So it is unwise for the West to take care of third world populations (clean water, antimicrobials, and such) because the overflow will take over the West? Should we just let them die prematurely and kill one another?

    • the cruncher October 15, 2016 at 10:13 pm

      This is a question?

    • Giovanni Dannato October 16, 2016 at 2:49 pm

      If Westerners desire to act humanely in these regions, they must do it on the condition of limiting fecundity. Otherwise they help 10 million weather a famine now only so there’s a famine that kills 100 million a couple generations later. They always want to give a fish, but until the can learn how to fish for themselves, it doesn’t solve the problem.
      Instead of letting weepy sentimentality dicate their actions they should ask themselves what selective pressures would be eugenic and thereby lift the population out of squalor and poverty by default?

  4. Sam J. October 19, 2016 at 2:41 am

    Many, many years ago there was a huge public push to limit population growth in the developed countries. We did. Now all the people who didn’t are crowding us out. For that reason alone they shouldn’t be allowed in. I don’t want any more traffic or trash.

    • Giovanni Dannato October 19, 2016 at 9:35 pm

      I’ve tried to explain to anti-natalists before that if cooperators don’t breed all that happens is defector predators swamp the ecosystem. It falls on deaf ears though because they assume all humans are interchangeable. They deny the biological truth that humans like any other living thing are selected for successful survival and reproduction strategies. Perhaps it is better that they wipe themselves out. Nature has no room for quitters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: