Humanity and Our Future.

[Rye_Bread]

All of our opinions are based on people who live in a certain lifestyle, country, and only have a few sources of knowledge and coverage. It's hard to say what needs to be done - when you aren't the one with all the information. That's why I am so skeptical about everything related to politics. When you don't have the information you're opinion doesn't mean shit. That's why I usually make no suggestions - and only critisize certain events going on. Although that is pessimistic, i feel it is the only thing we CAN do. Anything more doesn't really matter because know one has the knowledge to back themselves up. So please think of that when you make comments on weapons in other countries, or where the U.S. should pillage next. What we can know is history (patterns). We can compare the events of today with the past, and use the information which our leaders excuse their actions with.

My opinion on the Bush regime? They asked for permission in the UN to enter Iraq - they were denied. Bush deserted the search for weapons (even though the leader of the search suggested they continue) and simply attacked. As soon as they got in they hit major oiling stations and began selling it back home and around the world - that's called pillaging. Thousands of Americans died for the oil we put in our cars everyday (and i only use that example because alot of americans don't give a damn about the thousands more Iraqis who died for it).

World unification is not a new concept. It's been tried throughout history, and we are beginning to see it tried again. Conquest - only this time we get a different story. This time media is a weapon. A weapon against the common person. A tool used to form the mass of opinions - which in a democracy decide the outcome of an event. When our opions are formed by what they choose to show us (or just make up), how can it be called democracy? Under such a system, democracy is most definetly a joke. In Greece, a system evolved where all the people decided on events, and leaders were purely random. Although I can see the obvious problems in that, is it not true that the focus of democracy has become who we elect - and not the choices we make? And they corrupt even that small choice of ours.

But the funny thing is, many of us "critical thinkers" seem to think the whole world is turning to shit, and they need to take a stand, and stuff needs to change. There is always this pre conceived notion that things were better before this happened - and bush getting elected changed everything. That's not the case. That has never been the case. These things have always happened and will continue to happen.

What's the solution? World unification? Definetly not. To explain why not, first I must ask? What is the most valuable for a society? Culture. Distinction. Art. Freedom (and I am not talking about what America thinks freedom is). I think it's culture most of all. The way we express ourselves.

When we started getting a little spare time about a thousand years before Mesopotamia (the first civilization), we were able to produce things. The irony is these things came out of nothing - and they still do. Efficiency at survival provides us with the time to do what we want. But any time we spend not surviving - well it certainly isn't useful. Art. Culture.

But that's all changing. Because we are ALREADY united. Sure we may not have any vast government controlling everything (or maybe we do), but people still travel don't they? People communicate don't they? The whole world just got a whole lotta smaller. Now technology increases at the same rate - and different cultures expand into every country - destroying the dividers. And that means society changes. Economics change with technology. Societies values change with economics. We are already unified. We have already destroyed individuality within cultures. Anything left is just history. Literally re creating history.

But there are still renmants of individuality (excluding art). Past political movements and ancient vaules, they're all being eroded now. New generations are keeping so little tradition (except for when it looks pretty), that the world is changing at a rate much quicker then before.

So the middle east gets pissed off when their society becomes western. Simply because the successful benefit from western influences, and then everyone wants a piece of that. They themselves are the ones who have chosen to change, the west took no direct impact on them. It's more like they are mad at the West for existing. They are mad at the west for (see above). By existing we have destroyed their culture. And now they fight a losing battle against their own future generations.

We are unified. So now let's squabble over who controls it all, who controls the unification. The world is very quickly becoming one civilization and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Over the next few hundred years the countries fight their individual civil wars, all eventually losing their culture and distinction for the Western ideals. Everyone typically shares technology. Distinction gone. We are one country, and very soon we will become one country in a much more stereotypical sense.

But i don't think it's time yet. It's to early to call it that. It's to early to give it one big leader. So i think Bush should back the fuck off. Because we aren't ready for our monotone fate.

Cheers,
Ryan