Dan Rowden wrote:Note to self:
"War is the health of the State", said Randolph Bourne who I believe understood the topic rather well.
The modern state is not served by any tribal sentiment beyond some light, unreal form of nationalism as that would counter the primal goals of a state in terms of being an actor on a global stage. This leads to the natural and logical friction between various forms of tribalism and nationalism versus expanding federalism and globalism.
While it's tempting to support the birth of the supra-state, which would need multiculturalism, mixing of identities and diversity as its life blood, it's important to understand the levels of control and violence connected with those kind of super-structures. Once that principle is understood, a world order based on mutually assured destruction and local prolonged regime change missions with all the increasing, raw violence erupting at the urban level around the world can also become way better understood.
All the above would need a lot more fleshing out of course. But I think this line of reasoning is unavoidable. And assuming one arrives at the conclusion in a similar way, there's simply no reasonable future conceivable without going beyond the concepts of states and supra-states. The identity wars between tribal and global ideologies is something that is sentimentally very much invested in by so many, also because any nationalist sentiment would flip as easily between tribe and globalist state without actual reason to do so, that real change here cannot be envisioned before the blinders would come off first.
As for any post-state situation, a lot could be written and thought about. There are, I believe, a few possibilities.