The Next World War

1. If we define a world war as a direct military confrontation involving global powers on a scale reminiscent of World War I and II, it appears improbable to recur. This is attributed to a considerable portion of the global population being either already assimilated into existing societal structures or presently undergoing the process of assimilation. Consequently, the necessity to employ such force, reserved for instances demanding a swift and profound 180-degree shift in public opinion, seems currently unwarranted.

2. Should one conceptualize a world war as a global public uprising, its inevitability becomes apparent. This is because, from one end of the world to another, encompassing both advanced industrialized nations and less developed ones, masses are grappling with various issues linked to insufficient resources and rights. While the nature and manifestation of these challenges may vary, the shared element resides in the absence of control over one’s life, future and present circumstances, thoughts, and overall trajectory.

The dichotomy of wealth or poverty, peace or war, essentially encapsulating the struggle for survival, can exert control over societies for extended periods—spanning decades, centuries, or generations. However, inevitably, these conditions may evolve into societal norms, a point that might already be upon us. Aligned with human nature’s propensity to adapt and seek change, the logical progression entails fundamental shifts in the global order. This transformation is likely achievable only through a global public uprising, facilitated by the heightened connectivity of the global populace.This is because the current orchestrators of the global system are unlikely to allow such changes due to the preservation of their vested interests.

So why do governments go to war? 

The primary, enduring reason remains constant, as do the justifications put forth. While on the surface, conflicts may appear to stem from disagreements between governments and their national interests, it strains belief to assert that an administration, subject to frequent changes and, in some instances, short-lived tenures, remains identical to its predecessors. Historical analysis reveals that wars do not emanate from the general populace but are orchestrated by a select minority exercising control over the resources of the people, and perceive themselves as privileged or special.

The primary objective inherent in every war is the ultimate subjugation of the masses. A historical analysis of wars consistently reveals a recurring outcome: a significant population falling under the control of a select few, subject to distinct rules and regulations. In bygone eras, characterized by greater individual freedom and autonomy, the attainment of dominance over the populace necessitated comprehensive global military warfare. However, in contemporary times, smaller-scale conflicts, rivalries, and minimal human casualties suffice to maintain a delicate balance of power. This strategic approach facilitates the global distribution of financial resources, fostering a continuous circulation of money and serving as the cornerstone of our present economic model.

To be frank, the inherent value of an individual in contemporary society, regardless of their economic standing, reflects that of an 18th-century factory worker. It seems as though we are being observed and subjected to an operant or instrumental conditioning process by our governing authorities, merely to sustain the functionality of societal mechanisms.

In the face of intricate complexities, the apparent and viable solution appears to be fostering a generation characterized by heightened consciousness and self-awareness.

---