World Domination

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by SuperSonic, Jul 30, 2019.


Which scenario do you believe to be true

  1. The World is already under one government

    2 vote(s)
  2. The US , Russia, China etc really are in competition

    2 vote(s)
  3. The US is trying to create a new world order with the US in control

    0 vote(s)
  4. Nazis rule the world already

    2 vote(s)
  5. Other

    0 vote(s)
  1. If this is your answer. Then it’s competition on a genetic level to see which country is the smartest? So Nazis
  2. Who has the most likes, adds, and subscribed.
  3. What’s adds sorry I’m dumb
  4. Adding a totes edgy social influencer to your watch/friends list.
    SuperSonic likes this.
  5. #30 HippoCrushEverything, Aug 9, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  6. From Wikipedia

    Theories of motivation for war

    There are many theories about the motivations for war, but no consensus about which are most common.[86] Carl von Clausewitzsaid, 'Every age has its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.'[87]


    Dutch psychoanalystJoost Meerlooheld that, "War is often...a mass discharge of accumulated internal rage (where)...the inner fears of mankind are discharged in mass destruction."[88] Thus war can sometimes be a means by which man's own frustration at his inability to master his own self is expressed and temporarily relieved via his unleashing of destructive behavior upon others.In this destructive scenario, these othersare made to serve as the scapegoat of unspoken and subconscious frustrations and fears.

    Other psychoanalysts such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlbyhave argued human beings are inherentlyviolent.[89] This aggressiveness is fueled by displacementand projectionwhere a person transfers his or her grievances into bias and hatred against other races, religions, nations or ideologies. By this theory, the nation state preserves order in the local society while creating an outlet for aggression through warfare.

    The Italian psychoanalyst Franco Fornari, a follower of Melanie Klein, thought war was the paranoid or projective “elaboration” of mourning.[90] Fornari thought war and violence develop out of our “love need”: our wish to preserve and defend the sacred object to which we are attached, namely our early mother and our fusion with her. For the adult, nations are the sacred objects that generate warfare. Fornari focused upon sacrifice as the essence of war: the astonishing willingness of human beings to die for their country, to give over their bodies to their nation.

    Despite Fornari's theory that man's altruistic desire for self-sacrifice for a noble cause is a contributing factor towards war, few wars have originated from a desire for war among the general populace.[91] Far more often the general population has been reluctantly drawn into war by its rulers. One psychological theory that looks at the leaders is advanced by Maurice Walsh.[92] He argues the general populace is more neutral towards war and wars occur when leaders with a psychologically abnormal disregard for human life are placed into power. War is caused by leaders who seek war such as Napoleonand Hitler. Such leaders most often come to power in times of crisis when the populace opts for a decisive leader, who then leads the nation to war.


    Several theories concern the evolutionary origins of warfare. There are two main schools: One sees organized warfare as emerging in or after the Mesolithic as a result of complex social organization and greater population density and competitionover resources; the other sees human warfare as a more ancient practice derived from common animal tendencies, such as territoriality and sexual competition.[94]

    The latter school argues that since warlike behavior patterns are found in many primate species such as chimpanzees,[95] as well as in many antspecies,[96] group conflict may be a general feature of animal social behavior. Some proponents of the idea argue that war, while innate, has been intensified greatly by developments of technology and social organization such as weaponry and states.[97]

    Psychologist and linguist Steven Pinkerargued that war-related behaviors may have been naturally selected in the ancestral environment due to the benefits of victory.[98][failed verification] He also argued that in order to have credible deterrenceagainst other groups (as well as on an individual level), it was important to have a reputation for retaliation, causing humans to develop instincts for revengeas well as for protecting a group's (or an individual's) reputation ("honor")

    Crofoot and Wrangham have argued that warfare, if defined as group interactions in which "coalitions attempt to aggressively dominate or kill members of other groups", is a characteristic of most human societies. Those in which it has been lacking "tend to be societies that were politically dominated by their neighbors".[99]

    Ashley Montagustrongly denied universalistic instinctual arguments, arguing that social factors and childhood socialization are important in determining the nature and presence of warfare. Thus, he argues, warfare is not a universal human occurrence and appears to have been a historical invention, associated with certain types of human societies.[100] Montagu's argument is supported by ethnographic research conducted in societies where the concept of aggression seems to be entirely absent, e.g. the Chewongand Semaiof the Malay peninsula.[101] Bobbi S. Low has observed correlation between warfare and education, noting societies where warfare is commonplace encourage their children to be more aggressive.[102]


    War can be seen as a growth of economic competition in a competitive international system. In this view wars begin as a pursuit of markets for natural resourcesand for wealth. War has also been linked to economic developmentby economic historians and development economists studying state-buildingand fiscal capacity.[103] While this theory has been applied to many conflicts, such counter arguments become less valid as the increasing mobility of capital and information level the distributions of wealth worldwide, or when considering that it is relative, not absolute, wealth differences that may fuel wars. There are those on the extreme rightof the political spectrum who provide support, fascists in particular, by asserting a natural right of a strong nation to whatever the weak cannot hold by force.[104][105] Some centrist, capitalist, world leaders, including Presidents of the United Statesand U.S. Generals, expressed support for an economic view of war.
  7. Continued


    The Marxisttheory of war is quasi-economic in that it states all modern wars are caused by competition for resources and markets between great (imperialist) powers, claiming these wars are a natural result of the free marketand class system. Part of the theory is that war will disappear once a world revolution, over-throwing free markets and class systems, has occurred. Marxist philosopher Rosa Luxemburgtheorized that imperialismwas the result of capitalist countries needing new markets. Expansion of the means of productionis only possible if there is a corresponding growth in consumer demand. Since the workers in a capitalist economywould be unable to fill the demand, producers must expand into non-capitalist markets to find consumers for their goods, hence driving imperialism.[106]


    Demographic theories can be grouped into two classes, Malthusian and youth bulge theories:

    Malthusian theoriessee expanding population and scarce resources as a source of violent conflict.

    Pope Urban IIin 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade, spoke:

    For this land which you now inhabit, shut in on all sides by the sea and the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; it scarcely furnishes food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage wars, and that many among you perish in civil strife. Let hatred, therefore, depart from among you; let your quarrels end. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from a wicked race, and subject it to yourselves.[107]

    This is one of the earliest expressions of what has come to be called the Malthusian theory of war, in which wars are caused by expanding populations and limited resources. Thomas Malthus(1766–1834) wrote that populations always increase until they are limited by war, disease, or famine.[108]

    The violent herder–farmer conflicts in Nigeria, Mali, Sudanand other countries in the Sahelregion have been exacerbated by land degradation and population growth.[1

    According to Heinsohn, who proposed youth bulgetheory in its most generalized form, a youth bulge occurs when 30 to 40 percent of the males of a nation belong to the "fighting age" cohorts from 15 to 29 years of age. It will follow periods with total fertility ratesas high as 4–8 children per woman with a 15–29-year delay.[112][113]

    Heinsohn saw both past "Christianist" European colonialism and imperialism, as well as today's Islamist civil unrest and terrorism as results of high birth rates producing youth bulges.[114] Among prominent historical events that have been attributed to youth bulges are the role played by the historically large youth cohorts in the rebellion and revolution waves of early modern Europe, including the French Revolutionof 1789,[115] and the effect of economic depression upon the largest German youth cohorts ever in explaining the rise of Nazismin Germany in the 1930s.[116] The 1994 Rwandan Genocidehas also been analyzed as following a massive youth bulge.[117]

    Youth bulge theory has been subjected to statistical analysis by the World Bank,[118] Population Action International,[119] and the Berlin Institute for Population and Development.[120] Youth bulge theories have been criticized as leading to racial, gender and age discrimination.[121]

    Rationalismis an international relations theoryor framework. Rationalism (and Neorealism (international relations)) operate under the assumption that states or international actors are rational, seek the best possible outcomes for themselves, and desire to avoid the costs of war.[122] Under a game theoryapproach, rationalist theories posit all actors can bargain, would be better off if war did not occur, and likewise seek to understand why war nonetheless reoccurs. In "Rationalist Explanations for War", James Fearonexamined three rationalist explanations for why some countries engage in war:

    "Issue indivisibility" occurs when the two parties cannot avoid war by bargaining, because the thing over which they are fighting cannot be shared between them, but only owned entirely by one side or the other.

    "Information asymmetrywith incentives to misrepresent" occurs when two countries have secrets about their individual capabilities, and do not agree on either: who would win a war between them, or the magnitude of state's victory or loss. For instance, Geoffrey Blaineyargues that war is a result of miscalculation of strength. He cites historical examples of war and demonstrates, "war is usually the outcome of a diplomatic crisis which cannot be solved because both sides have conflicting estimates of their bargaining power."[123] Thirdly, bargaining may fail due to the states' inability to make credible commitments.[124]

    Within the rationalist tradition, some theorists have suggested that individuals engaged in war suffer a normal level of cognitive bias,[125] but are still "as rational as you and me".[126] According to philosopher Iain King, "Most instigators of conflict overrate their chances of success, while most participants underrate their chances of injury...."[127] King asserts that "Most catastrophic military decisions are rooted in GroupThink" which is faulty, but still rational.[128]

    The rationalist theory focused around bargaining is currently under debate. The Iraq War proved to be an anomaly that undercuts the validity of applying rationalist theory to some wars.[129]

    Political science

    The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardsonfollowing World War I. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of WarProject, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Conflict Data Program.[citation needed]

    The following subsections consider causes of war from system, societal, and individual levels of analysis. This kind of division was first proposed by Kenneth Waltzin Man, the State, and Warand has been often used by political scientists since then.[130]:143
  8. Continued


    There are several different international relations theoryschools. Supporters of realism in international relationsargue that the motivation of states is the quest for security, and conflicts can arise from the inability to distinguish defense from offense, which is called the security dilemma.[130]:145

    Within the realist school as represented by scholars such as Henry Kissingerand Hans Morgenthau, and the neorealistschool represented by scholars such as Kenneth Waltzand John Mearsheimer, two main sub-theories are:

    1. Balance of powertheory: States have the goal of preventing a single state from becoming a hegemon, and war is the result of the would-be hegemon's persistent attempts at power acquisition. In this view, an international system with more equal distribution of power is more stable, and "movements toward unipolarity are destabilizing."[130]:147 However, evidence has shown power polarityis not actually a major factor in the occurrence of wars.[130]:147–48
    2. Power transition theory: Hegemons impose stabilizing conditions on the world order, but they eventually decline, and war occurs when a declining hegemon is challenged by another rising power or aims to preemptively suppress them.[130]:148 On this view, unlike for balance-of-power theory, wars become moreprobable when power is more equally distributed. This "power preponderance" hypothesis has empirical support.[130]:148
    The two theories are not mutually exclusive and may be used to explain disparate events according to the circumstance.[130]:148

    Liberalismas it relates to international relations emphasizes factors such as trade, and its role in disincentivizing conflict which will damage economic relations. Realists[who?] respond that military force may sometimes be at least as effective as trade at achieving economic benefits, especially historically if not as much today.[130]:149 Furthermore, trade relations which result in a high level of dependency may escalate tensions and lead to conflict.[130]:150 Empirical data on the relationship of trade to peace are mixed, and moreover, some evidence suggests countries at war don't necessarily trade less with each other.[130]:150


    • Diversionary theory, also known as the "scapegoat hypothesis", suggests the politically powerful may use war to as a diversion or to rally domestic popular support.[130]:152 This is supported by literature showing out-group hostility enhancesin-group bonding, and a significant domestic "rally effect" has been demonstrated when conflicts begin.[130]:152–13 However, studies examining the increased use of force as a function of need for internal political support are more mixed.[130]:152–53 U.S. war-time presidential popularity surveys taken during the presidencies of several recent U.S. leaders have supported diversionary theory.[131]

    These theories suggest differences in people's personalities, decision-making, emotions, belief systems, and biases are important in determining whether conflicts get out of hand.[130]:157 For instance, it has been proposed that conflict is modulated by bounded rationalityand various cognitive biases,[130]:157 such as prospect theory.[132]
  9. w00t will rule the world
    Veyronman likes this.
  10. I am going to run for president in the 2024 presidential campaign. My goal is to turn the US into Canada with guns and corporal for punishment for SJWs and the easily offended.

    Vote Diggs now I just need a running mate and by that, I mean an incredibly hot chick to be my VP that I can mate with
    ETB4U and SuperSonic like this.
  11. Ban gender neutral bathrooms and you have my vote.
  12. #37 SuperSonic, Aug 10, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
    I think wars are fought for national pride and for material wealth to increase the power of the regime be it trading partners or physical material that can be sold in exchange for peoples labour. War is just taking something instead of trading for it.

    I think the US is in a position now that they can dictate to any country on earth what they want. I can’t see how China and Russia can compete if they really even are. I believe that what we see on TV is just a show, theatre to entertain or scare the people.

    The US probably is now in control of the entire world.

    What do you think?
  13. This thread seems so forced.
    SuperSonic, SEABEE and ETB4U like this.
  14. adrian has lost his touch
    SuperSonic and Veyronman like this.
  15. Ive lost a reason to post, because noone actually visits this website
    Tree Fitty likes this.
  16. I will change all bathrooms to age restricted, not gender restricted.
    There will be family bathrooms for infants and their guardian, then "I wipe my own ass"age bathrooms Then 13 and under, then 14-18 then 18+.
  17. But you just posted....
    Tree Fitty, ETB4U and SuperSonic like this.
  18. What about 18+ that can't wipe their own ass?
  19. they're just going to have to shit themselves, i'm afraid
    ETB4U and DIGGS like this.
  20. You already posted this in another thread. MODS!
  21. Great book, "Colossus" by Niall Ferguson goes into how America needs to come to terms that it is just another empire, and that isn't so bad, so long as they stop having an identity crisis and get back down to being honest about their foreign policy.
    SuperSonic likes this.
  22. did you ever fix your car? was it another 944 or a miata last time?

Share This Page