Tags

To fully understand conflict in civilizations it is necessary to understand how conflict occurs between two groups. When two or more groups exist in close spatial proximity to each other, a number of situations arise. Conflict over resources is bound to ensue and this raises important questions.

First a small detour to understand how transactions between individuals take place. Allow for two individuals Aditya and Bahadur. Aditya promises Bahadur that he will recompense Bahadur for some service in some form at the completion of the service. The following game arises:

If Bahadur completes the service, Aditya has two moves – he can choose to pay or not pay. If Bahadur is paid, he can attack or desist. If Bahadur desists the game ends. If Bahadur attacks, Aditya must either be able to resist (by attacking with the same ferocity) or he loses the game.

If Bahadur is not paid he can attack or desist, attacking being the superior.

If Bahadur does not complete the service, he has two moves – Attack or desist, desisting ending the game. If he attacks Aditya must either attack or desist, attacking being the superior.

Now it is trivial to note that without violence or at least the threat of violence both are on the losing side. The take away from this exercise is that the threat of violence enforces all contracts and all transactions. All religions (ideologies) implicitly understand that without the threat of violence there is no way for humans to coexist in a group and thus provide a mystic sense of retribution (Karma, Heaven etc). Religious beliefs increase social cohesion since uniformity of culture allows for uniformity of values. If Aditya and Bahadur had agreed implicitly (due to their uniform value system) that there is no need for violence and that payment should be immediately settled, they gain the most and their utilities are maximized. This is obvious since a diverse set of value systems (i.e the western concept of diversity) reduces social cohesion. 

But without uniform value systems, the only real option would be to play defect reducing the utilities to both players.

Now back to resource conflicts. In a finite physical area, there is a finite set of resources. Communities (and therefore civilizations) have multiple ways of computing their utility function. One variable of the function is the expanse of territory, another the resource value of the territory, another military power and finally demographic extent. These variables have trade-offs and are not truly independent.

For example if there is a large number of one community (high demographic extent), it is more likely that their expanse of territory is also high. Another is that if the expanse of territory is very large, the odds of owning territories with high resource value increases.

Civilizations are locked in conflict for hegemony. The main aim of any group is to increase it’s utility and this can be achieved by achieving total domination of other regions by a variety of ways.

Let us for the time being assume a static demography, i.e that both groups are growing in size at the same rate.  In such a scenario, the only way to increase hegemonic influence is to increase demographic extent i.e create ways to defect from one group to another. How does one create a utility for defection however? Well one can instantiate a Democracy with Universal Adult Franchise. Policies are now guided by the “will of the people”. As the size of the defectors increase, the policies that appeal to both groups within the larger original group shift towards the defectors. In fact minorities wield an excess amount of power by virtue of being the most intolerant. This reasoning is what makes the CIA fund Christian Missionaries in Bharata – by creating a group of defectors who by virtue of being a minority will wield power in excess of their actual demography the USG now control the policies that are acceptable within Bharata’s Overton Window.

Another way is to spread ideological memes which weaken societal cohesion. It is a well established fact that the structure of the family causally inhibits crime. Bachelors are far more likely to commit crime than married men, because of the way women influence their men within the family setting. Lord Indra in the Mahabharata speaks –

The domestic model of life is very superior and sacred and is called the field of cultivation of success…I therefore tell you to bear the very heavy burden of the duties of domesticity …Asceticism is to be obtained by leading a life of domesticity, upon which depends everything. Free from pride, those [observant of duties of domesticity] attain heaven and live for unending time in the regions of Sakra.

For the very same reason the CIA funded feminism, the chief recipient of funding being the harridan Gloria Steinem a childless octogenarian. The end goal of Western democracy and feminism in Bharata is the complete destruction of the family resulting in the complete destruction of civilization.

Another way to increase hegemonic influence is by sheer usurping resource rich territory. This is why China refuses to let go of the South China Sea. The mineral wealth of neighbouring areas, the shipping route and the fishing grounds all motivate China to maintain hegemony over the area. China also forces it’s culture on the usurped land of Tibet by replacing their textbooks, replacing the style of homes and even uses drones to murder Tibetans attempting to leave.

All of these things are only possible, when there is a threat of violence. When a group is assaulting another, it can only to do so when it maintains military superiority. [1]

Civilization is a thin veneer. Anyone who makes the folly of deeming it the end & not the means gets subsumed by someone else’s savagery.

This is why groups and therefore civilizations are constantly locked in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. The only smart move is to play defect.

Of course, this post is not over without a reference, if fleeting to demography. Now it is true that demography rates are not equal in India and that Hindu TFR is lower than Muslim TFR. Once the demography of a certain region increases beyond a limit, the less populous group loses the region. The same occurs very often in the West and goes by many names – white flight and in a slightly different manner gentrification. This is why Love Jihad is so important in the Indian context because it implies a weakening of demographic integrity. After all women uphold civilizational values, while men create them.

Groups are at odds with each other on a number of different fronts, and the only way to emerge a winner is to be more intolerant to out-groups and to expand those that may be considered the in-group. This is why it is important for Hindus to assert their identity (Hindutva) and for us not to be cowed down by judgments from our secular (Christian) Judiciary or the demands of secular liberal media. It is incumbent on Hindus to develop Hindu institutions to resist the anti-Hindu laws (temples, RTE) of India and develop into the magnificent civilization it once was.


[1] Quote found here.

Advertisements