Viewing history objectively

It is of great importance for one who wishes to understand mankind and morality to be able to escape the timeframe and ensuing bias of the NOW, to be able to remove one’s self from the PRESENT, and instead view history, current events, and the processes societies undergo, in a neutral void, to lay out the way things work plainly and factually, almost algebraically, and then proceed to compare. When the factual proceedings of events and the changes in societies, governments, or individuals are conflated with the emotional attachment and the false heroism or evil that is often given to them by those experiencing them, there is a tendency to see superficial differences as meaningful, to make one cause nowadays seem worthy and noble, while a fundamentally identical policy 2,000 years ago was brutal and ignoble. The face change is partly a result of the difference in cultures and technologies that time has wrought, and partially a conscious effort to cover up the ugliness of such a policy with a veil that would make it acceptable to most modern day audiences.

For example, we can take the example of the age old government strategy for dealing with a shrinking tax base. In the modern day, there are very highly developed nations in Europe, and indeed for several generations these nations have been among the most highly developed in the entire world. A high quality of life paired with the pressures governments put on women to enter the work-force, leads to a lower birth rate in these nations, and this trend is widely observed as other nations gradually attain higher levels of development for themselves also.

When birth rates in a population (the average number of children a woman would give birth to in the entirety of her reproductive life) fall below replacement levels (slightly higher than 2.0, to account for replacing both parents and unexpected deaths), and without immigration, the population in a nation begins to decrease. Because of this, the tax base a government has access to necessarily decreases along with it, and the government can expect to see a decrease in its relative power and influence.

Because the sole end government wants to achieve is to grow in any way possible, those involved with it will pursue whichever strategy seems most likely to cure this ill. In this case, most often the government finds populations from outside its borders to resettle within. Of course this is dangerous in the way that it creates a close proximity of incompatible cultures more often than not, but that is not of concern to the state if they can simultaneously increase their tax paying population.

What we see today is a Europe with the lowest fertility rates likely in the history of mankind, with an EU average fertility rate of 1.59, which is absolutely below the replacement rate which requires a bare minimum of 2.00. According to the Population Reference Bureau, 6 of the bottom 10 fertility rates are held by European nations, with the other 4 being either city states or small, highly developed East Asian nations. Where do we see governments importing massive quantities of foreigners to fill up the ranks of their tax herd? Europe, of course. In Germany alone, the government expected to receive up to 800,000 “refugees” alleged to be from Syria, but ended up receiving almost twice that. In reality, most of these people were simply economic migrants from elsewhere in the Islamic world, but that did not matter to the state, who could cover this up easily with their heroic cover story. These people were also uneducated, unskilled, and came from a culture with values diametrically opposed to that of the Germans and of Europe in general. These largely Islamic migrants do not value in any meaningful way the tenets of free speech, hard work, and a generally pro-liberty attitude that define Western culture, and are necessary for maintaining the progress that the West has won. Germans and Europeans would have realized this, and not tolerated such a blatant attempt at destruction of their culture. However, the migrants did provide a nice solution for restocking the government’s tax base, so a cover story was of course devised.

The whole situation was rebranded as a heroic campaign to give refuge to the innocent victims of a violent civil war between tyrannical entities in the middle east. The leftover guilt that Germans especially had from WWII and the Nazi Party, and Europeans in general have from their period of colonialism, was also used to leverage the populace into feeling like it was their duty to accept these people into their society. Indeed, the Western tolerance and open mindedness by virtue of its existence nearly destroyed itself. Nowadays, if one speaks out against this forced resettlement and calls it what it really is, in most circles he is shouted down, and condemned as a “racist” and a “fascist”. Even when citing factual cases of violence perpetrated by this new culture is seen as inappropriate. Acknowledging the ugly truth and trying to work towards a solution is as dangerous as ever. When one remembers mankind’s history, however, this series of events becomes a little easier to understand, and indeed makes clear that government is not enlightened, and does not change from what it fundamentally is.

From around AD 166-180, the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius led a campaign along the Danube River, in modern day Hungary, Slovakia, and Czech Republic, against a local Germanic tribal federation known as the Marcomanni. However, after a war with Parthia, Roman troops had contracted what became known as the Antonine Plague (likely smallpox). When spread across the empire, the plague infected farmers, city dwellers, legions, senators, and even likely claimed two emperors. In all, it killed around 5,000,000 Romans, at a time when the empire contained nearly 60-70 million people. In previous campaigns, Rome had pursued near genocidal excursions against the Germans, especially the Iazyges tribe. However, after the Antonine Plague had begun decimating Rome and indeed the legions on the front ( and also the Germans themselves), Marcus had instructed his generals to do their best to simply capture their enemies and not exterminate them, as he planned to attempt to resettle them within the boundaries of the empire. Before the plague, Marcus planned to create two new provinces in the area, and settle them with Romans. However, with the empire in its current size being unsustainably large after losing so many able bodied citizens, settling and controlling additional territory was unfeasible. Indeed, he needed to replace those lost citizens with additional people from outside the empire.

Although these processes arose out of different circumstances, this is fundamentally the same process that the EU is trying to undergo today, with just a different costume that is appropriate for the times. In fact, for most of its history, tribes subjugated by Rome often paid soldiers to the legions instead of tax in the form of money. It is easier for a government to “purchase” already full grown (capable of paying taxes or otherwise being productive) people from other nations, rather than pursuing policies which will increase the native population. Good policy takes at least 18 years to have a noticeable effect in this regard anyways. The inclusion of Germans in the legions proved to be a huge reason that Rome fell in a violent series of invasions the way it did.Will this be acknowledged as the same process? Will it be made known the dangers of combining two cultures that are not only incompatible, but hate each other? If it will be, one must step outside of the NOW, and observe factually and clinically in a static environment.

A similar situation exists in the process of vote buying. In the United States, the Democratic party “buys” for itself many votes by providing extensive welfare programs to many groups who are themselves not very productive. This practice is common among the urban poor, new immigrants, and young underemployed. The party also works toward loose immigration laws to encourage many immigrants especially from Mexico to come to the United States, where they can also receive welfare and likely become devoted voters for the Democratic party.

The Republican party of course panders to voters of different demographics and with different strategies, as does every political party on earth, but parties who persuade voters with more direct incentives, like the machine politicians of the late 19th century, or many more socialistic parties today are extremely interesting.