Old Men, Sending Young Men Out to Die
What is Griffin’s Unified Theory of War?
|
|
“Old men sending young men out to die, Young men dying for a politician’s lies”. If you don’t recognise the lyric, search “Mike Harding, Bombers’ Moon” and have a listen to one of the best and most moving folk-style songs ever written. Harding’s observation expresses a commonly observed feature of wars, my piece which follows seeks to explain why.
Whenever a war ends badly – as they generally do, for all concerned – the post mortem usually includes the questions “who started it?” and “what sinister forces pushed us into it?” The answer to the first question is usually simple_ The other side. The second question is usually answered according to the ideology and prejudices of whoever is answering it.
Centuries ago, it might be the King, greedy barons, the Jesuits, the Protestants, the Illuminati, or perhaps even the Devil. More recently, the answer might be the bankers, the Rothschilds, the generals, the arms dealers, the Jews, vainglorious politicians, the capitalists, the Communists, the fascists, the Learned Elders or the Freemasons.
Ask the question today and a lot of answers would focus on the global elite, the Military-Industrial Complex, the United Nations depopulation agenda, alien Lizards, Klaus Schwab and the WEF, or simply – one which historians have suggested for centuries – governments in trouble at home looking for ways to distract the masses from their own failures.
As a matter of fact, quite a few of those vested interests listed above do, or did, exist, and played a role in fomenting various wars. But what if there is an older, deeper and much more powerful force at work? Something inclining to war in human nature itself?
In that case, to point the blame at any of the above – at least as the primary cause, rather than as opportunists who exploit conflict which was already brewing - is not only potentially mistaken and unjust but also reduces the chances of avoiding war.
I must declare a personal interest: As the father or father-in-law of four men of military age, and the grandfather of nine grandsons who will be old enough to be sent to the next slaughter in the blink of an eye, my default position is anti-war.
I’m not a pacifist, but when I look at past conflicts I see very few which were really fought for the reasons with which the masses were riled up to fight, and even fewer which were worth the tears of a single mother, or the bones of a single soldier.
As a matter of fact, while civil wars are often the most terrible of all, they are at least sometimes fought over genuine principles. The same cannot be said for most of the wars of, for example, City of London imperialism, which were invariably about gold and other people’s territory.
Those points duly made, let us now turn to Griffin’s Unified Theory of War as a Sociobiological Inevitability. It goes like this:
Human nature exists. It is not, as the Marxists claim, innately good, with the peaceful instincts of the Noble Savage warped by the Original Sin of private property. If it is innately evil, as per the Christian doctrine of Original Sin in the Garden of Eden, the God sent His only begotten son to pay the price of that sin, and the question of Heaven or Hell is about individuals, not nations as a whole.
Medieval Catholic theory of the Just War tells us very strongly that most wars in history have actually been unjust, but nothing I have ever seen (I am many things, but most definitely not a theologian) suggests that the human tendency to rush to war is a Divine punishment or intention.
Regardless of one’s view on evolution as the mechanism for creating new species, it is self=evident that the behaviour, and even some of the physical attributes, of a given species can be and are changed by generations of selective breeding. Think of the many different breeds of dog; all created by human choice for different tasks, but all of them still the same species.
We know that the same process operates in human populations to spread beneficial adaptations. The adult tolerance of dairy products in the descendants of Bronze Age pastoralists, for example. The lighter skin tones of modern North West Europeans (see my early Substack piece:
https://substack.com/home/
Or the way in which modern Tibetans diverged from the ancestral line they share with the Han Chinese to be better able to survive and function in high altitudes which would debilitate or even kills most other human beings.
Everyone agrees that dogs can be bred for temperament as well as physical variation, so since human populations can also over generations adapt physically it is obvious that human behavioural patterns could also be changed by selection.
Dyed-in-the-wool ‘blank-slate’ Marxists and their mirror image materialist capitalists may disagree, but everyone blessed with the common sense which academics often lack will know that I’m right here.
What has this got to do with war? Well, my thesis is that old men with power have a deep-rooted instinct to pick fights with other leaders and to send their young men off to war.
Why should this be? Whether you think that homo sapiens has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, or if you believe in a Young Earth, you will agree that, for most of our time as a species, our ancestors lived not in large, industrialised nations, but in small tribes of hunter gatherers.
However sophisticated you may reckon you and your fellow humans are, you have to acknowledge that many of our instincts have been honed by – and for – the pressures of survival in those small tribes.
Modern archaeology, including amazing advances in DNA analysis, also tells us that warfare and genocide are part of the human condition. Evolutionists in particular have no reason at all to doubt this, since chimpanzee bands wage wars of conquest and extermination against their neighbours.
Since you’ve got to here, I guess you’re finding this article interesting. Please pass it on to others to thank me for writing, and encourage me to give you more!
Why, then, should tribal leaders be keen on wars, given that every war has losers as well as winners and, statistically, they’ve only got a 50/50 chance that their tribe will win?
Because, says Griffin’s Unified Theory of War as a Sociobiological Inevitability, they stand to gain genetically whether their side wins or loses. This isn’t genetic rocket science. In fact, it’s devastatingly simple:
The tribal elders, send their young men off to war. If they win, they kill off enough of the other side’s young men to bring home at least some of their young women as sex slaves.
There is now a surplus of breeding-age females in the tribe. Which men are entitled to these? The bravest surviving young warriors (some of whom also probably died in the fighting) – and the tribal or religious leaders who sent the lads off to war in the first place.
That makes sending the tribe to war something which directly increases the chance of old leaders perpetuating their genes on into the next generation and beyond. Even if they get their own sons killed in the process, if they get a last chance to impregnate a young widow or a sex slave, they automatically pass on twice the amount of their own genes as if a son did it instead.
And if their tribe loses? Well, if they end up as the victims of one of history’s total genocides, it obviously wasn’t such a smart move after all, But, more often than not, defeat in war means the loss of territory and elite power, not extermination.
It also leaves the losers with a shortage of young men – and a corresponding surplus of young widows and unmarried girls. Who’s left to take advantage of this? The old men with power, the ones who sent the young men out to die. The ‘Selfish Gene’ indeed!
The question, when you think about it, is not whether this thesis is correct, but why on earth would our instincts have turned out any other way?
This is not to say that old men with power are psychopaths (although, looking at it realistically, some undoubtedly are). Instincts like this work at a deep, subconscious level, that’s one of the main reasons they are so very powerful.
A caveman Boris Johnson, complete with bearskin and a bone through his nose, wouldn’t have looked at the young women of his tribe and thought, “if I send the lads off to war I’ll get a bit more of that even though I am now forty, fat and full of fleas, And the more young whippersnappers that don’t make it back the better.”
He would just have been quick to take a mistaken territorial incursion by the neighbouring tribe as a signal of aggressive intent, or an act of disrespect that he would tell the braves diminished the tribe. If of a religious bent, he could easily justify his instinctive feelings of hostility by deciding that the ‘others’ were worshipping the wrong gods, or even the right gods the wrong way.
In more ‘sophisticated’, materialist societies, the conscious reasons for war are liable to be equally materialistic. The tribe/nation needs more resources, the other side is a dangerous economic rival, they adhere to an ideology which threatens ‘our way of life’.
In a liberal society in the throws of terminal madness, a leader might even genuinely convince himself that the enemy must be destroyed because they don’t share ‘our values’ and don’t accept the right of pederasts to groom young boys.
Whatever the reason, despite the fact that the Johnsons now wear Armani suits and Rolexes, rather than bearskins and nose-bones, the instinct behind it is the same. So many excuses, but always the same end result: A war which gives their selfish genes a chance at one last crack at reproduction.
The big problem, of course, is that our capacity for making war is now very dangerously in advance of our instincts to make it and ability to survive it. An instinct which served a purpose when the young men were armed with clubs and pointy sticks is a different thing altogether once both sides have machine guns.
 |
This photo showing the enthusiastic crowd in Munich in August 1914 is alleged to include a young Adolf Hitler. Many historians believe it is a Nazi forgery, but the crowd cheering the declaration of war was certainly real
Even if that accounts for the warmongering tendencies of so many leaders, what about their subjects? Think back to the sepia photographs and silent movie clips of the crowds in London, Paris and Berlin cheering the outbreak of war in 1914. What madness is this?
The genetic madness of old men with power, because while most Europeans inherit the maternal DNA of Stone Age hunter-gatherers or neolithic farming communities, our patriarchal lines are almost exclusively from Bronze Age pastoralists.
They brought not just Indo-European languages, but also swords and axes, horses and highly mobile protein (cattle and milk products) to our homelands. The DNA evidence proves that they exterminated the men who were already there and took their women. Be a European man ever so lowly, he is still the descendant of Bronze Age men with power.
To make things even worse, in the days when wars were fought with clubs and sticks, there would have been a marked tendency for the fitter, stronger and cleverer to survive, which would have given tribal conflicts a positive eugenic impact.
It may not have been good for individuals, but for the tribe overall - and such tribes would always have tended to be genetically very homogenous – war was by no means always a negative. Just don’t try this at home once you’ve got jet fighters and drones, let alone nuclear bombs.
Hence war – at least for generations who have no experience of how terrible it can be in the industrial age – tends to have a fatal attraction.
It may be very reassuringly simple to blame war on the profiteer industrialists, the Rothschild banking system, the WEF trans-humanists or whoever you really don’t like. Sometimes, your target group may indeed be involved in providing the ideas, finance or weapons with which the war is waged. In which case, they may well even profit from it, because that is what elites are generally in a position to do – profit from opportunities.
But if you get hooked on blaming specific humans for things which are innately part of being human, you are dangerously likely to miss the point. Being unaware of your own instincts, and unable to see them at work among the old men with power in your own time, you are all the more likely to be swept along with the enthusiasm for war.
That’s why I’ve written this. Not to show how clever I am to have formulated Griffin’s Unified Theory of War as a Sociobiological Inevitability, but because I have come to the conclusion that, since we no longer live in small tribes or fight with clubs and pointy sticks, war is a really bad idea.
And, in this, the Year of Our Lord 2025, the last big war is now effectively out of living memory. Those of us whose grandfathers gave us a personal glimpse of the horrors of the ‘Great War’ are likewise an ever-shrinking minority. This makes Generation Z the most susceptible to war hysteria of any generation since the detonation of the first nuclear bombs.
The symptoms are already there. A chunk of the working class and newly disadvantaged middle-class youth are itching for a civil war against the Muslims.
 |
Large numbers of college kids think that Vladimir Putin is a homophobic monster, that Russians with snow on their boots are on the verge of stomping their way to our doorsteps, and that something must be done to stop them. They may not be so keen on doing the fighting themselves, but enthusiasm for war opens the door to conscription, so they really should be more careful about what they wish for.
It doesn’t really matter whether they think of themselves as the Most Tolerant Generation in History, or as Generation Remigration, they’re all liable to end up as “Generation Sent to Die in Someone Else’s Quarrel.
Listen, my friend, no war is ‘Great’, even though some wars may be inevitable and even the lesser of two evils. There are, you will not be surprised to hear me say, real problems arising from mass immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular. There is a problem too with the various vested interest groups which have helped to impose that immigration upon us.
But to think that war is the way to resolve those problems – any of them - is to be part of the collective insanity of a population with a weakness for war. And that war – those wars – are now terrifying close. Now, more than ever, we need to rein in our instinctive enthusiasm for confrontation and the blood of Others, and to have honest conversations about our grievances instead.
Or, at the very, very least, take a long hard look at the capability of our people to prosecute, endure and win a war. When you realise just how weak we Europeans are in these departments, you might decide that working to turn our people back into a people – a conscious tribe – is much more constructive than hating others because they are more cohesive and ethno-centric than we are.
As a matter of fact, when our current, massively over-complex society is overwhelmed by the coming Convergence of Catastrophes, you or your children are going to end up living in a much simpler tribal society in any case. Nothing anyone can do is going to change that, but those who prepare for it will stand the best chance of leaving descendants to be involved in the Great Rebuilding.
You should also take special note of the fact that going off and having children of your own is far, far better than trying to kill theirs.
All of which would help to keep you and yours out of trouble and constructively engaged for a couple of generations – and that’s much better than reaching for the clubs and pointy sticks!
Thanks for reading Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale! Subscribe for free to keep in touch, because I’ve got exciting plans.
Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.
|
