Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

Thomas Martianson · 2005-06-01 16:53:50

I am of the belief that a police state here on Earth is inevitable and here is why:
With the space allowed, this will seem like an over-simplification, but here goes:
Anyone familiar with political science has at one time been acquainted with dialectic models of history as offered up in the 19th Century by Hegel and Marx. The Marxian model is specific about the "actors" of history. One of the problems of the Marxian model is that it depicts each progressive era of history with an equally sized triangle and represents linear time on the diagonal axis on the left side of the diagram.
It occurred to me several years ago that if one chooses instead to represent linear time on the struggle lines, the picture changes drastically:
Paleontologists usually agree that modern man appeared on the fossil record around 100,000 yrs ago; so one could say that it took less than 100,000 yrs for the struggle between Unorganized Society and the Division of Labor to Synthesize into Empire.
Archeologists usually agree that the earliest of the empires of Antiquity are no older than 10,000 yrs. So one could say that it took less than 10,000 yrs for the struggle between Empire and Barbarism to Synthesize into Aristocracy.
Historians usually agree that banking and hence capitalism as we understand it did not begin until the time of the Crusades; so one could say that it took less than 1000 yrs for the struggle between Aristocracy and the Bourgoisie to Synthesize into Democratic Capitalism.
The 20th Century saw the collision of Democracy with the totalitarian systems of Fascism and Communism; so one could say that it took less than 100 yrs for the struggle between democracy and totalitarianism to Synthesize into the present order that in which we all now live: Corporatism.
9-11 kicked off the official beginning of the last Era of History: Corporatism vs. Religious Terrorism. if the model as shown above remains consistent; then this struggle will be roughly 10 yrs in length and will also synthesize into a final product. Since Dialectical Synthesis is always a hybrid of the two systems that were in struggle, one can only come to the conclusion that the final product of history will be one of the following:
1).State as Religion, or
2), Religion as State.
Its shrinking. Why is it shrinking, you may ask? Because there has been exponentially increasing population and exponentially increasing technology within a finite space: the Earth.
In no matter what form government takes; the proliferation of people within a confined space=the proliferation of law to mediate their affairs in a manner that is consistent with civilization. This condition we call Peace. However, as one might see, as population continues to grow, this peace will itself become enslaving because freedom will become increasingly at odds with civilization.
Within a single planet paradigm, there will be no resistance; each atruggle line in each progressive era is shorter than the previous one because issues, ideas, and beleifs are colliding at faster and faster rates. Each struggle line could be refered to as Geo-Political Space-Time; that is to say thsat for each social order, an antithesis to that order has less time and less space to organize itself. When the Dialectic Pyramid reaches Zero, therewill no longer be any Geo-Political Space-Time left; there will be no time or no space for an antithesis to whatever global order emerges to gather itself.
The only way for the Process of History to continue is to add more Geo-Political Space-Time. The only way to that is to add more planets.
It seems our alternatives are as follows:
1). State as Religion
2). Religion as State
3). Get our asses to Mars in the most expedient manner.

As the model suggests, it may be too late; we may have already passed an Event Horizon of sorts as it is doubtful that any let alone many people will be able to get to Mars and establish a self-sufficient colony within the next 10 yrs.

There is also a third axis that can be added to the Dialectic Pyramid; an environmental one. If the left axis is population (consumption) and the right axis is technology(exploitation), then the Apex of the Pyramid or Zero will be defined when the Earth itself can longer support further progress in either population or technology. After that freedom will die in the name of civilization or civilization will fall in the name of freedom. So it seems that we will have a choice between global despotism or another Dark Age; at least in the former we get another run at it...lol
I know all this is very depressing, but it is necessary to come to grips with our situation so we might in some way inform the public of the dire consequences of not-going, and to perhaps expediate our efforts to GO.

Fledi · 2005-06-01 18:26:15

That description is basically what i'm concerned about, too. The colliding point could still be somewhat further out in the future than 10 years, but it's really not a bright perspective.
Add to this the ever increasing possibility of a global war using WMD, and the dark picture is perfect. That would in the more optimistic estimate throw civilization back a couple hundred years, in the worse it would be the END.
Don't know what would be better, that risk or the other possibility of the Human Hive with no freedom at all, which could become a dead end to improvement.
Hmm seems to be I'm not in a good mood today, might be from listening to all that Star Wars 3 music.

I agree, going for space looks like the only way out of this trap and maybe the only chance to make up for all the destruction we caused and probably still will cause to nature and our own kind in particular.

srmeaney · 2005-06-01 19:23:50

9-11 kicked off the official beginning of the last Era of History: Corporatism vs. Religious Terrorism. if the model as shown above remains consistent; then this struggle will be roughly 10 yrs in length and will also synthesize into a final product. Since Dialectical Synthesis is always a hybrid of the two systems that were in struggle, one can only come to the conclusion that the final product of history will be one of the following:
1).State as Religion, or
2), Religion as State.

So you are suggesting a slip backwards to a world controlled by people who believe in God and who back that policy up by forcing others to live by it or be destroyed by their army of the day. Religion as State is Theocracy. More likely a Government that discriminates against those who are not of the religion recognised by the Government.

RobS · 2005-06-01 22:18:11

I don't know how going into space really will help, because a Martian colony of any size is a century off, and it will be dependent on the Earth for a long time after that. And it will be built by big governments and big corporations because no one else will have the money to do it. If you want to escape governments and corporations, there are various remote places on this planet where you can at least breathe the air and scrounge a living off the land. The Falkland Islands, for example; in the middle of the Atlantic, English speaking, lots of oxygen, lots of sheep and shellfish,and lots of wind for wind power. Of course, this reminds me of the story of the man who was convinced the world would collapse into war and chaos and decided the Falklands were likely the only place remote enough to be safe. Of course, he went there to escape war and chaos shortly before the Argentine invasion. . .

This logarithmic idea you have is not very realistic. Empires are more like 4,000 years old and they were started by aristocracies. Capitalism is more like 500 years old. And who says "corporatism" is our current condition? Why not democracy? It isn't perfect, but it has been steadily spreading for 500 years as well. Democracy and the rule of law (and therefore the right to property,a pillar of "corporatism") have staved off ages of chaos and brought safety, security, a long life, and prosperity for millions of human beings that would be beyond the imaginations of people 200 or 300 years ago. Please remember that in 1900, life expectancy in the US was 50 years. Remember that in 1800 every American adult could expect to have every tooth in his or her head rot so badly they had to be pulled without any anesthetic (unless you count whiskey as anesthetic and unless you died young). Remember that the germ theory was not understood until the 1870s, and before that cities were extremely unhealthy. Remember that until welded iron and steel pipes could be made cheaply, city water systems used wooden pipes and the water could not be put under significant pressure, so when a house started to burn there was no way to drown the fire under fountains of water like we can today. Entire cities burned to the ground, and people had no deeds, no insurance. . . they lost everything.

So before you run off to Mars to build a utopia without corporations and probably without much government, consider that you are already living a life of comfort and ease, prosperity and fairness that is simply beyond the imagination of the vast majority of our ancestors.

-- RobS

clark · 2005-06-02 05:44:34

A 'police state' as generally thought of, is the result of a rise in population density with an increase of anonimity. It is also facilitated by the rise and spread of technology that enables individuals to act and threaten greater numbers of people.

The police state is a condition imposed by whichever power group tries to retain power, be it 'state' or 'religion'. State and religion are merely two sides of the same coin, much like democracy and communism are merely different means to execute facilitation of individuals interactions.

Going into space will not escape this end state- think about it: A large colony of thousands or millions in space, or on Mars, will require something of a police state (like near total survillenace) in order to keep the machinery everyone depends on safe.

Where do we see camera's go up on Earth? In highly populated cities where individuals do not know one another. You don't see to many cameras in a small town or a rural village where everyone knows everyone.

Fledi · 2005-06-02 09:45:44

That's true but there is no reason why Mars colonies would have to go over maybe a few thousand colonists per settlement to stay effective and largely independent of other settlements. Of course high value, difficult to produce goods would only be made in certain places, but there could be trade among the different bases for these.

Grypd · 2005-06-02 10:02:16

That's true but there is no reason why Mars colonies would have to go over maybe a few thousand colonists per settlement to stay effective and largely independent of other settlements. Of course high value, difficult to produce goods would only be made in certain places, but there could be trade among the different bases for these.

What you describe has already happened those settlements that where in the right place and made a valued good would expand in size until they where cities. They would then dominate the smaller cities until someone could unite a few cities by some means and that is an Empire.

Look at Babylon and Gilgamesh and even the greek city states as an example of what eventually happens.

But we live in a world where information flow is so fast and powerful that a new idea can literally sweep the globe in a month and in doing so be literally diminished. We seem to be turning back to our historical stereotypes for some form of guidance and certainty in this hectic modern world.

Fledi · 2005-06-02 10:57:42

Well I think most greek city states were far better places for living in (aside from being a woman/slave and the lack of the comfort of modern technology), than later kingdoms/empires or today's mass societies. Would be great if we could recreate something like that on Mars without the negatives. Then we could still go to Ganymede, or even Alpha Centauri when/if these cities "evolve" into those later forms.

Thomas Martianson · 2005-06-02 12:43:32

A Breakdown of the Logarithmic scale of the Dialectic:

RobS has criticiized the accuracy of the suppositions I mande in my original post concerning an algorithmic pattern to the Dialectic. As I stated in my original post; it would sound overly simplistic. As people and civilization cannot be broken down into something as simple as numbers; no pattern established will be exactly algorithmic; but it can be established that it is roughly so.
When I stated in my original post that archeologists generally agree that the first Empires are no older than 10,000 yrs, I was not making direct reference to the well known empires of Antiquity, but to the beginning of the Neolithic age which began circa 10,000 B.C. at the end of the Ice Age. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Empire building began in the Neolithic and only later produced the magnificent ruins we associate with what we call the Early Empires. One might notice that I did not say that it took 100,000 yrs for the struggle between Unorganized prehistoric society and the Division of Labor (Tribalism) to produce the order of Empire; I said that it took LESS than 100,000yrs. Regardless of exact dates, it still took LESS than 100,000 yrs.
When I made reference to Aristocracy, What I was talking about was the fuedal system established in Western Europe after the Fall of the Roman Empire and its economic order of Serfdom. Regardless of exactly when the Early Empires of Antiquity were established, it still took LESS than 10,000 yrs from that time for history to produce the fuedal order of the Middle Ages. So the statement: "less than" still applies.
When I mentioned Capitalism, I was refering to the establishment of Banking. There was coinage and other froms of legal tender way before the era I am desrcibing. I was refering to the advent of the first forms of investment banking. This did not occur until around the time of the Crusades; so the statement: "it took LESS than 1000 yrs for the struggle between fuedal aristocracy and the Bourgoisie to produce Democratic Capitalism is still valid.
Anyone familiar with the 20th Century knows that that is when Democratic Capitalism collided with various forms of Totalitarianism (fascism and communism). RobS also criticizes my assertion that the current order we now live in is actually Corporatism. That is not to say that there is not a democratic component to Corporatism. Perhaps I should have said "Democratic Corporatism". Corporatism by definition is a system wherein the government assumes either direct control of the nations major means of production or highly regulates those industries. The United States governement runs the nations Interstate freeways and highly regulates the other transportation industries. It highly regulates the nations national resources. Soon we shall see the nationalization of healthcare. This is a result of the Synthesis of Democratic Capitalism struggling with Totalitarianism. The fusion of these systems began, some would say with FDR's New Deal; was expanded with LBJ's Great Society, and will expand again with nationalized healthcare. This is not to say that the system is not democratic as these changes have been the result of democracy; but it can be said that the system is less Capitalistic all the time. This can be said to be the result of the people surrendering a certain amount of freedom through the democratic process for greater amounts of security in some areas of their lives. However, as the role of government expands; there is less that the voter has a choice about. So i believe that the statement: "it took LESS than 100 yrs for the struggle between Democratic Capitalism and Totalitarianism to synthesize into Corporatism" is valid.
The reason that I beleive that the current struggle is between Corporatism and Religion is this: All the current belief systems currently in collision are all what philosophers refer to as Deterministic Beleif Systems. All Deterministic Belief Systems make the following suppositios in common:
1). That History is finite.
2). That History will produce a final result or Order.
3). That this final result or Order will be permanent.
4). that this final result or Order will be "good".
The only area in which these systems differ is impetus and method. The 3 major Detrministic Belief Systems are Fascism, Socialism/Humanism, and Religion. The impetus is in what these systems identify as what philosophers refer to as the "Prime Mover" of History.
Fascism, for the most part eliminated from the running, beleives that the Prime Mover of History is a gestalt consciousness of race; what the Germans referred to as volkgeist. The fascist views history as a progressive struggle between the races ending woith the triumph of a "master race".
Socialism beleives that the Prime Mover of History is technology and the way it changes production relations over time. It fosters as consciousness of Class. The Socialist views History as a progressive struggle between verious classes resulting in the end in a classless Utopia.
Religion of course sees the Prime Mover of History as nothing other than God. The religious view history as a progressive struggle between good and evil, ending with the ultimate triumph of good over evil.
The current struggle, characterized not only by the War on Terror, but also with the Culture War here in the States, is in fact a three sided conflict between 3 Deterministic belief systems:
1). Christianity (God was a man)
2). Islam (God was not a man)
3). Socialism/Humanism (Man is God).
So here we are near the Apex or top of the Dialectic Pyramid. If the pattern established holds; this struggle will produce some sort of recognizable result within around 10 yrs.
The fact that all the belief systems in collision are all deterministic belief systems indicates that this is the final battle for the gestalt consciousness of humankind itself.
If the dialectic pattern of Synthesis holds, none of these sytems will be the victor. There will indeed be a hybrid; a Universal Religion of Man that recognizes all faiths as legitiment cultural reflections of Humanist ideals; humanism canonized into religious doctrine; borrowing the symbols of religion. In whatever form this takes, Religion will be State and State will be Religion. In any case, dissent will not be tolerated because those who do not adhere to the faith will be enemies of civilization and humanity.
With this in mind, it might be easy to imagine a Mars that is a dumping ground for such dissenters; those who do not wish to dilute their faith or sense of culture or nationality. In this scenario, colonial Mars is a hodge podge patchwork of various and disparate groups.
As the means of procuction will also be the means of survivial, it is unlikely that there will be much in the way of freedom on Mars either unless such a colony is designed in Law and in structure to place a higher value on Freedom than it does on survival; the Martian ergonomics of "give me liberty or give me death".
This perhaps could only be acheived by the esyablishment of many small self sufficient settlements and something like the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution: all citizens are armed. This would create a social environment in which jeopardizing anyones rights jeopardizies the survival of the colony as a whole.
I'm getting off topic here so I'll bring it around. Firstly, I beleive that the process of history as we understand it is near an end and that the only way for that process to continue is to broaden the dialectic with the addition of more worlds.
Secondly, I beleive that time is short. If we find ourselves in a global totalitiarianism ( regardless of form), it is unlikely that that state will be anxious to have folks running around out there outside of their effective means of control. So time to get this going is running out.
Thirdly, I beleive that a freedom loving culture can be established on Mars IF freedom is its primary motivator.

Fledi · 2005-06-02 13:26:36

That seems to be more simplistic than your last post, at least in the second part. There are some major regions that you forgot about like India, China, South America and Africa. Can't see that all these would now simultaniously reach that cultural breaking point, at least not in the near future.
Also, for parts of the world like eastern Europe the level of freedom actually increased over the last two to three decades and that away from the totalitarian system you described.
Where I see a danger to this development is in the increasing technical possibilities of observing/controlling people. But at the same time countermeasures are also becoming more sophisticated, so it's not that clear which will win out in the end, if anything will at all.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-02 13:33:03

So many angles to come at this. . . starting with little chunks just to establish a common frame of reference and get us all agreeing on what words mean. MT's already gotten off to a good start defining his terms, which I will now quibble with. Everyone, shoot me down, as long as we all end up talking about the same things.

All Deterministic Belief Systems make the following suppositios in common:
1). That History is finite.
2). That History will produce a final result or Order.
3). That this final result or Order will be permanent.
4). that this final result or Order will be "good".

With regards to 1-3, I don't believe that is the case. In fact some "Deterministic Belief Systems" are very much aware of their own mortality in a historical sense. German National Socialism for example (more on that later) went so far as to design its architecture with "ruin value" so that like Roman and Greek structures it would remain impressive and convey the glory of the Reich long after it fell into decay. Some elements of modern democractic societies are almost obsessive about their perceived impending decline.

Fascism, for the most part eliminated from the running, beleives that the Prime Mover of History is a gestalt consciousness of race; what the Germans referred to as volkgeist. The fascist views history as a progressive struggle between the races ending woith the triumph of a "master race".

You're confusing Nazism with Fascism, a common mistake but nonetheless one that needs to be rectified. Fascism in a generic sense is largely unconcernend with "race", that fixation was largely a peculiar trait of Nazism, admittedly a related idea. "Culture" would be a more accurate term than "race" as a central motivator of fascism. That said, the prime mover is not so much "culture" as the "will of exceptional individuals". Academic perspectives tend to overlook this, at least until recently, but it's very clear both from primary sources and if one has a perspective that is more "from the ground" so to speak.

Which leads us to corporatism, a term that has always been poorly defined. Fascism in fact held corporatism as the basis of its economic policy.

Socialism beleives that the Prime Mover of History is technology and the way it changes production relations over time. It fosters as consciousness of Class. The Socialist views History as a progressive struggle between verious classes resulting in the end in a classless Utopia.

Silly pinkos.
I couldn't resist.

In whatever form this takes, Religion will be State and State will be Religion. In any case, dissent will not be tolerated because those who do not adhere to the faith will be enemies of civilization and humanity.

A plausible scenario, though a have serious doubts about the Dialectic means of divining it. As is often the case we can easily find patterns looking back and from that deceive ourselves into believing we've found a pattern to history that's anything more than a tendency of humans to engage in the same sorts of behavior. It tends to read too much in.

Firstly, I beleive that the process of history as we understand it is near an end and that the only way for that process to continue is to broaden the dialectic with the addition of more worlds.

While I'm in total agreement that we should colonize other worlds with as much haste as practical, proclamations of the end of history have a record of being wrong 100% of the time.

So much more to address, this is a fairly meaty (if somewhat dry) topic. But for now it's time to find the barbecue sauce.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1117740991

clark · 2005-06-02 14:10:34

Well, to be fair...

1). That History is finite.

Well, it is, if you think about it. Evetually history, for all intents and purposes, will end.

2). That History will produce a final result or Order.

Well, it will, one way or the other, the final result will be an order of something, or more precisely, nothing.

3). That this final result or Order will be permanent.
Well, it will be permanent in the sense that the universe is over.

4). that this final result or Order will be "good".

Subjective, but sure, why not. Might as well face the future with an optimistic outlook.

The rest, as they say, is on shaky ground.

Take your same timeframe and all your theories. Now, what do we see: p-o-p-u-l-a-t-i-o-n growth and an increase in population density. There's your magic progress. There's your driving force.

but whatever.

Commodore · 2005-06-02 21:39:04

Population growth is slowing down in the developed countries. The developed countries will eventualy follow suit.

The question is what will happen when medical technology catches up, and education does not.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-03 09:20:36

The question is what will happen when medical technology catches up, and education does not.

Lots of ignorant people that won't die? ???

Could be a problem. Or not, depending on our temperment.

BWhite · 2005-06-03 11:17:25

The question is what will happen when medical technology catches up, and education does not.
Lots of ignorant people that won't die? ???
Could be a problem. Or not, depending on our temperment.

Hume's Heaven?

reddragon · 2005-06-03 16:07:41

The problem with your basic analysis, Thomas Martianson, is that it is based on a lot of "one could say"s. There are lots of things that one could say about history. Your model is one possible version of things, but you could devise many others. Social, political, and economic systems and conflicts are always extremely complicated so any generalization falls short of the actuality and can mess up the prediction. No period of history can really be classified as the conflict between only two opposing ideas. The progress of civilization is too complex to accurately predict. You use generalizations, estimations, and simplification is in your analysis of history; as a result the data based on this analysis has a wide margin of error. Besides even if a perfect model taking all the data into account, it would still be uncertain. No one knows what new ideas people will dream up. The twentieth century alone saw the end of imperialism; the rise and fall of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism; the Cold War between Capitalism and Communism that came close to nuclear war; the rise of and conflict between Zionism and Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East; the rise of terrorism; and an increasing divide between "liberals" and "conservatives" in US politics based largely on moral and religious issues; as well as many other things. I doubt any model based on pre-twentieth century history would have predicted all this.

Thomas Martianson · 2005-06-03 18:02:38

Well,
As I said in the beginning of the original post; the space aloowed would make this sound like an oversimplification. It is ,I admit; a generalization; but one that i beleive adequately serves as a basis for understanding the reducing nature of History.
When progress is described in the dialectic sense, it is refering to those societies that are on the cutting edge. There are for instance, tribes of people in remote corners of the Earth that are still living in Stone Age conditions. There are still a few left over dynasties and some parts of the world where the order is still more or less feudal. Capitalism still exists but it is now highly regulated. Communism still exists in places like N. Korea and Cuba. There are those societies that are the spearheads of history and those that still flounder in the wake.
Even if one totally rejects the model that I have proposed, anyone with some acquaintance with history would have to agree on several points:
1). The pace of history has been steadily quickening since it began.
2). The population of the Earth has been increasing at an exponential rate.
3). Individual freedoms have been eroded, often by the consent of the governed in exchange for greater collective security.
I still maintain that all these things are interelated and thus some sort of pattern( albeit a rough one) can be established to show that we live in a reducing paradigm in which "the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest amount of people" is something that will be continuously defined downward.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-20 05:02:03

I might bump an old thread, I think the fears of this thread were wrong but there is still something there worth taking note of.

This topic perhaps in a ways is one of those Negative Doomer posts, perhaps it came during a time of political despair the USA opening two new frontiers in Wars after the terrorist attacks of 911 and the younger George Bush coming out with ridiculous speeches like 'Youre Either With Us or With the Terrorists' and passing the Patriot Act.

Thomas Martianson wrote:

Islam (God was not a man)

This is an old post put I thought I would quote it, after reading islamic texts and listening to many ex-Muslims I believe muslims do not worship the same God as the God described by Judaism faith or Christianity.

If you entertain the idea of the religion as kids believe in a tooth fairy or Fans take 'star Wars' and the Jedi very serious at their conventions and just examine these so-called holy books of islamism and jihadi faith.

The 'god' of islam if you examine this written character is a type of pedophile terrorist Moongod, it is a type of god who picked a mad man jihadi cult leader to be the spokes person. He was illiterate, a bandit and killer who could not read or write but possibly captured other literate people and made them write his words.
The god of islam might be older than islam itself, perhaps originally coming from Indian Vedic, Arab Pagan and Babylon faiths.

When Christians and Jews first hear of islam and Mahomet, they either thought he was the 'Anti-Christ', a demonic man influenced by the Devil or Satan himself, the Jewish described him as a 'mad man' and a false prophet. The name Jesus was not always the same name, there have been linguistic and cultural changes in the world of Christianity and Kings and Empires have fought against each other over some translation or interpretation of words in 'The Bible' and what is canon, these wars perhaps going against the original teachings of Jesus. The culture of Muslims have weird views on 'Jesus' they believe that al-Lah did a switcheroo like a Gypsy or Carnie does a three card trick, the muslim texts often believe that Jesus was not crucified, but some random guy got switched on a cross for Jesus and then this Jesus Prophet was bodily raised up to heaven by al-Lah...that's what muslim texts write in contradiction to Roman writings or Jewish writing describing Jesus described by name as the Messiah, the name Iyesus, the Son-of-God, the name Iesu, the name Yehoshuat, he Jesus description of 'Mishnah' may refer to Jesus a type of magician or sorcerer man and prophet, or muslim texts contradict historical letters of Paul, Greek-speaking communities, Byzantine manuscripts. Some muslims in Asia and India believe that Jesus had Regenerative Healing power that you see in a Superhero Cartoon, their islamic texts say survived the crucifixion, he heals himself and he was taken off the cross alive and continued to preach in India, that's what Indian islamics say.

The war in Afghanistan finally ended 2 years ago, all this time bin Laden had been hiding out in Pakistan and Allegations of a support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden have been made for many years. I believe the Joe Biden Kamala Harris Admin were correct to pull out of Afghanistan but they way it was done looked terrible.

I personally believe the war in Afghanistan was 'Lost' once they made a Sharia Law Constitution described jihadi islamism as its most sacred law in year 2004 maybe. In the past aggressive war mongering religious cults were destroyed, Nazis for example before WW2 had a religion, it started to embrace weird elements of Paganism, many followed Protestant faith, Catholic faith, many of the higehr ups were influced by the Thule and Völkisch group, the began to believe in a German super-being and an ancient elite Aryan German master 'Race' they also followed 'The Occult', the Japanese also Embraced elements of Nazi ideas, Emperor Hirohito's religion was Shinto. Japan was a member of the Axis, and therefore an ally of Nazi Germany the Japanese seen their Emperor as someone divine another cult religion, there might have been a Cult of personality element to Japan as Stalin was almost worshiped or the Kim family in North Korea.Some rightwings still exist in Germany and some righwting still exist in Japan, Masami Uno a known Japanese writer had wrote that Japanese are the true descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and so will eventually defeat "fake Jews" there was also a Tokyo Major who used to say outragous political statements against other Asians. Whatever happened after WW2 the German Nazi Occult and Imperial cult of Japan mostly died off or had almost been destroyed, it was a fringe taboo unwanted culture by the mainstream. In 2004 after defeating the Taliban and controlling almost 99% of the country the USA raised the status of islamism and jihadi belief, Sharia Law was wrote into its constitution and stated to be the most commonly practiced faith throughout Afghanistan. Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites BUT within the limits of the Sharia Laws, I believe this was when the war in Afghanistan was lost, it was not lost in combat.

Russia has now become used to the role of 'Religious Tyrant'

very strange how a Priest can bless Stalin when Stalin had killed so many million of family including Christians?

Putin's Rehabilitation of Stalin Blamed for Priest's Blessing of Statue
https://www.newsweek.com/putin-rehabili … ox-1821054

Nationalism and the Loony Religion types return to power in places like India

'Vulnerabilities of Religious Minorities in India: Unmasking the Impact of Rising Hindu Nationalism'
https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au … tionalism/

The United States might still be a growing nation, maybe seen as a project in development for hundreds of years but it does have unique things which other nations and cultures do not have.
Amendments to the United States Constitution giving its people 'Rights' the Freedom of Speech
It says you can have a gun, protect yourself from a wild Wolf or Bear or foreign Tyrant King, to 'keep and bear arms'.
No unreasonable searches and seizures
Rules for grand jury the rights of Legal criminal procedure and right to due process,

German culture has now changed ever since Angela Merkel who served as chancellor of Germany from 2005 to 2021 brought in millions of millions of muslim Mohammedan culture from places in North Africa, the Middle East and other countries like Bangladesh, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.

Germany: Muslim migrant who molested several women gets community service and has to take German course
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/08/germ … man-course

Germany: Muslim migrant Berlin police commissioner robs a motorist of $62,000 while wearing his uniform
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/08/germ … is-uniform

Germany: Muslim migrant murders the mother of his two children
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/08/germ … o-children

Both Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump banned travel from troublesome islamist nations. So you can say that cultural demographic change is something the USA has that is different to Europe.

However with an Open Border to the South at Mexico, the USA will also see a type of invasion and cultural change, other types of similar despair, human trafficking, gun running, drugs imported to the USA and now people arriving at the border from many parts of the world.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-20 05:04:56)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-06-01 16:53:50

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#2 2005-06-01 18:26:15

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#3 2005-06-01 19:23:50

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#4 2005-06-01 22:18:11

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#5 2005-06-02 05:44:34

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#6 2005-06-02 09:45:44

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#7 2005-06-02 10:02:16

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#8 2005-06-02 10:57:42

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#9 2005-06-02 12:43:32

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#10 2005-06-02 13:26:36

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#11 2005-06-02 13:33:03

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#12 2005-06-02 14:10:34

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#13 2005-06-02 21:39:04

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#14 2005-06-03 09:20:36

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#15 2005-06-03 11:17:25

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#16 2005-06-03 16:07:41

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#17 2005-06-03 18:02:38

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

#18 2023-08-20 05:02:03

Re: Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero

Board footer