Human beings evolved a brain for a reason. And that was not so they could go into the business of making parasites out of other humans. Human beings literally cannot improve their society by having entire hierarchies not competing to be the best according to the law of the jungle.

The Left says that while competition is powerful, social cooperation is much better. I say a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. By trying to keep individual human beings weak, so as to enforce a social cooperation upon unwilling individuals, the Left is able to create an illusion of a working society based upon cooperation. But illusions do not have favorable results when they meet with reality.

A rteal society based upon mutual interest and harmony that strenghtens individuals through competition and independence, will shatter any fake society made upon the premise that it is better to force people to work together than to have people willingly become partners.

If you want a concrete example, simply look at Arab conscript armies and how they performed against American and Israeli armies.

That, is all the proof you need about which kind of social hierarchy is stronger and better.

Remember Thermopylae? The warfare of the Greeks was based upon extremely well armored hoplites working as a team. The Persian Empire had conscript armies that were lightly armored. The Greeks valued individuals enough to armor them in expensive linen armor and large apsis shields. The Persians believed in “there is a quality to quantity all on its own”.

International cabals like the UN and their enablers somehow think that just because you own a lot of sex slaves, that this means you have created a strong social network for the progress of humanity. That just isn’t true.

If an individual can’t make it on his own, then sure as hell a society of such individuals won’t be able to make it on their own.

Any fully healthy society based upon a hierarchy can only be made stronger if the individuals in it become stronger. The way the UN and their people have fixed it up, stronger individuals that can defend themselves and tell the UN to f off somehow make the larger society weaker. Certainly it makes it harder for the UN to pick up starving children in their vans, of course, but there is something particularly wrong about a society that gets weaker the stronger its individuals become.

In response to Tap, why wouldn’t the rich and wealthy want the poor and more populous to gain in power? Sure, there are some reasons the rich and powerful may work towards that end, but few are in the World Bank. They don’t want to upset the status quo by actually helping poorer nations. Where would they take their vacations then?

The World Bank recently kicked out a do gooder reformist, after all. These kinds of people have every interest in making sure that there is a need for parasites such as them.

I think that historians are pretty clear, though, that countries that are just getting going (ours is a major case in point) almost invariable use subsidies and tariffs to jumpstart their agriculture and industry.

The big damage to the economy appears to be when this continues far past its genuine usefulness, because of political pressure – as the U.S. agricultural subsidies and tariffs appear to exemplify. As only one example, we are paying more money for our sugar and beggaring the poor nations of the Caribbean, all to enrich a few large farming companies in Florida. And in a year with bumper corn crops, do the subsidies drop or go away? Don’t be silly!

As long as Malawi was looking to others (U.S., Europe, the World Bank) for charity, the were disuaded from doing what is in their best interest. Not that I think those giving the charity were trying to hurt them or have them not do what was in their best interest. That’s just how government run charity works.

So now that they’ve decided to do it for themselves, it is working. Sensible decisions are being made. Does this not remind you of the way the welfare system worked?