The more able and the less able: they have always found a way to co-exist on planet earth. Conquest and
forced tribute was one way. Conquest and
slavery was another. Conquest and
political domination was a third.
But such were the ways of the past. Today, for the first time in recorded history, a world-wide consensus holds (more or less) that naked conquest is Not Alright. Now that the inhabitants of every square inch of the globe have a fellow in a swivel chair at the U.N. claiming to speak in their name, colonialism is no longer the done thing.
But the More Able cannot help but dominate the Less Able. The Cold War took foreign conquest underground, and what had once been done by plunking down a flag and a cross was now pulled off via spies, discreet assassinations, coups, death squad training, and the like.
Even that great chess match drew to a close, and we are today left with one bloated power whose military tentacles circle the globe. A power who patrols the world's seas from the South Pacific to the Gulf of Aden to the Caribbean. Despite this pseudo-empire on which, like her 19th-century cousin's, the sun never sets, America does her best to
paint a rosy face on world dominance.
But no empire lasts forever. The
vultures have been circling for years squawking of the U.S.'s demise. The question is not 'will she fall?'--what goes up must come down--but 'when?' and 'what comes after?' Who shall be the 21st century's 'more able?'
International relations, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Should the U.S. tumble from its perch, others will rush in to fill the void. Those unaware of human biodiversity--almost all mainstream analysts today, including those at
Stratfor--are missing a major bit from the toolkit, and their analysis
suffers for it. Only amateurs are left to ask the race-realist questions. Two valid ones are, 'is Euro-America on the decline?' and, if so, 'who shall rush in to fill the geopolitical void?'