October 22, 2007
by Keith Simerson

In a 2006 interview with Essential Science Indicators, Dr. Bruce Russett, a Yale University political scientist, stated that, "In the 1970's I had developed a perception with regard to Europe's peace: there was wealth, geographic proximity, and alliance with America and American troop presence, all of which kept the Soviets at bay, allowing European nations to interact peacefully. But there had to be more to the European peace.

Was it a coincidence that these countries were all democratic, and what is it about democracy that induces peace among neighboring nations? Was it that there was peace because there was democracy, or democracy because there was peace? It was an interesting puzzle, and we performed a multivariate analysis to try and get a handle on it. Elections and leaders accountability for waging war were at the core of our theory, but there was no strong evidence that we were correct in measuring democratic norms. Other analyses turned up alternate possible explanations, including trade and international organizations."

In 1993, Dr. Russett wrote an article in Scientific American entitled, "Peace Among Democracies" where he stated that, "Since 1946, pairs of democratic states have been only one eighth as likely as other kinds of states to threaten to use force against each other and only one tenth as likely to do so."

That research, coupled with a 1992 task force's findings that was commissioned by the Carnegie Commission for Science, Technology, and Government, concluded that pluralism is one of the most potentially effective forces for promoting global development.

I might be naive but I am beginning to suspect that the "war-making powers that be" have not only read the same research but have began to implement those findings into their real world future plans for this planet which would better explain, at least for me, many of the political decisions and policies that have occurred post 9/11 within our government. Hell, they probably already knew about that research before it was even conducted.

Anyway, is it possible that the intellectual elites of our day believe that it is time for the next major advance of mankind by "eliminating the intolerant autocracies that are driven by a passion for doctrinal or ethnic cleansing and replacing them with pluralistic democracies?" Howard Bloom, author of the aforementioned quote and of The Lucifer Principle declared the findings of the task force commissioned by the Carnegie Commission to be strongly implying that that is the case.

Fascinating as that theory may be, is it a viable one?

Historian A.L. Rowse wrote in The Expansion of Elizabethan England that Henry VIII's final failure to conquer the French one of the luckiest embarrassments England ever endured because it forced them to focus their attention on the New World where they would eventually amass a huge fortune and become a cultural dynamo, giving us, among many things, the plays of Shakespeare.

(Article Continues Below)

And let's not forget about Rome. Entire rival civilizations were stamped out or swallowed up when she began stretching forth her tentacles of power and striving for expansion. Whenever that "Democracy" (or should it be Empire?) decided it wanted additional territory or resources, it viciously grabbed for it without the least amount of moral sensitivity.

According to Plutarch, Julius Caesar, "took by storm more than 800 cities, subdued 300 nations and fought pitched battles at various times with three million men, of whom he destroyed one million in the actual fighting and took another million prisoners."

And when he leveled these enemy cities, he occasionally exterminated every man, woman, and child just to get his point across to the next potential resister.

But here is an interesting note. Despite Rome's atrocities on the battlefield, she brought together large masses of squabbling city-states and tribes which allowed for an exchange of ideas and trade that radically quickened progression in that region.

So, what have we learned from the historical expansions of England and Rome? Strangely enough, horrible atrocities often have led to human progression and prosperity.

In Rome's case, when she was finally toppled, the next 200 years would see half of the European continent perish from plagues and starvation. Despite her oppression, Rome was also a stable organizing force. When the barbarian "freedom fighters" toppled Rome they unknowingly unleashed horrific pestilences and wars that they apparently were not ready to contend with.

Would that region have been better off remaining under Roman rule?

More importantly, are the autocracies or non-democratic states of today better off left alone to live their lives as they have for thousands of years or would they benefit from being under a democratic government? Would that change allow them a more productive existence? I don't claim to have the answer for that one but undoubtedly there are those that believe it will.

I have tried to imagine what the effects would be globally should our world become a one world democratic government. I am not sure that it would be the answer for worldwide peace for I see nothing within our nature that doesn't enjoy a good fight now and then. Even if everyone came under one umbrella and declared to be one happy democratic state it would only be a matter of time before somebody, somewhere would rise up and claim that they were tired of being in a one world government and once again the winds of war would blow.

I couldn't help but think that a one world government would be courting a potential disaster that Kant called "a soulless despotism" that would eventually fall into anarchy. Since every country believes that the world would be a better place if they could call the shots I do not look for that to change anytime soon.

Somehow I get a sense that our world system as we know it has come to an end and a one world government is definitely the ultimate goal in the minds of the elites for our future existence. We have, in all probability, come to a time of historical significance. Within the next few years, we are all probably going to get to learn firsthand how intense labor pangs can be when the fetus charging down from the comfort and warmth of the womb is nothing more than human advancement heading for the light.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider the following:

1. Make a donation of $1 or more to help keep this website active.

2. Click Here to Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter

Keith Simerson [send him email] is a self-employed foundryman and sculptor as well as an Air Force veteran in the security field.  See his blog at www.goodnevilguy.blogspot.com.