Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

The simplest answer? Most people interpret the vision from today's perspective, plus or minus a whopping six months into the future. It's just human nature: people know what they know and if you tell them that something can be known in the future and thus known in the today, they'll just respond that it's "not what I know right now so it's impossible!"

I honestly think quite casually across decades. If you can't do this, you can't do grand strategy. If you're going to freak on the basis of today's perceived correlation of forces, you simply can't join the conversation, because you already "know better."

Of course, that'll just make you that much more dismissive in your confident criticism. In your cultural arrogance, you'll assume your okay is required for the vision to advance. Why? Can't teach an old dog a new trick and there's no older dog than the top dog. To the top dog, there is no possibility of surprise, for he rules all knowledge.

The bulk of the ruling elite in this country, plus the opinion makers, have all grown up with the assumption that it's the West versus the Rest. It's what they know. It's the myths they love. It's the history they recognize (written by winners, so why shouldn't they?).

Tell them that your vision isn't based on retaining the West as a useful concept (much less alliance) and they simply cannot follow you forward. It's just not possible! Are you kidding?

Any future vision that features a rising Asia is labeled "Blade Runner-ish," as in, fooking scary!

The flip side for this crowd is just to admit defeat, as in "Mad Max-like" future bleakscapes.

To far too many of them, that spans the whole horizon.

Admitting the notion that West is augmented or improved or "saved" by East (our current fear) is just too much. Don't even get these people started on Islam!

If you tell them that all you're doing is locating need with incentives, they'll just stare at you blankly. Didn't I get the memo about the West-versus-Rest being eternal?

Getting comfortable with that future is seen as being almost a traitor to the race. You've gotta be defeatist, right?

If that doesn't work, they'll toss all the doom-and-glooms on the East. Nevermind that in the same breath they'll cite the East's nefarious deviousness that makes them our inherent long-term enemy. In terms of actual solutions pursued in the interest of self-interest, none of that counts for shit.

And there you get to the nub of things: at its core, there's a racial uncomfortableness with this whole package. "Victory" means we all stay white, right? And "they" submit, right?

Tell me it means Christians run things, and our beliefs stay supreme. Tell me the Anglos stay on top, because the last two hundred years can't be a blip? To admit anything else is just . . . I dunno . . . sick? Sacreligous? Ahistorical (at least back to Asia's decline)?

No, wait a minute, naive--that's what you are! You're just not as comfortable with the West's superiority as we are, and that's reason alone to hate you and your incomprehensible visions!

Blacks will never get along with whites.

Greeks will never get along with Turks.

Brits and French will fight forever, as will French and Germans.

Pakistanis and Indians must fight, so too must Indians and Chinese, and Chinese and Japanese.

Islam versus Christianity is neverending, surpassed only by Shiia versus Sunni and Catholic versus Protestant and Arab versus Jew.

All these things are carved in stone, therefore none of these things are possible.

Thus, Barnett imagines worlds that no humans can inhabit.

Guess what? All these sorry f--kers trapped in the past die off. That's carved in stone.

It's not the meek that inherit the earth, it's just the next crew.

And the next crew's always better than the last. Impossible to imagine, I know, but true nonetheless. (Darwin, nodding sagely in the background, infuriates every believer save God).

So no, I don't worry. If anticipation isn't your favorite joy, you can't be a grand strategist.

If you fear death so much that you idealize your past, you can't be a grand strategist.

If you fear life so much that you idealize the past, you can't be a grand strategist (and yes, that's what makes Osama and his crew so pathetic as opponents).

Fear is the little mind killer.

Amateurs talk hatred, professionals talk love. Amateurs talk destruction, professionals talk co-optation. Amateurs want to win wars, professionals want the game already decided before the first shot. Amateurs loathe fair fights, professionals never allow them to unfold.

Naivete is operating under the assumption that this fight hasn't already been decided. What we negotiate all along are the terms, and to slant that negotiation to the greatest extent possible, you have to get past the hate (especially the self-hatred), and connect.

The real 5GWer never claims victory, never recognizes a loss. All victories are claimed by others, by design. All "losses" simply set up the next iterative victory.

The most profound manipulation involves the most profound emotions, and love trumps hate every time. That's why humanity won out over the rest. That's how we evolve. That's how we progress.

But if you want to achieve real objectivity, you have to leave the fears behind. As long as you drag them along, they drag you down. You see only what you know and you know only what you see.

It's the only qualification that's non-negotiable, because without it, there's no accessing the joy that is human evolution. Instead, there's just the bitterness of knowing that life is just a slog and then you die.

And here's the most amazing/infuriating part: you can't think systematically about the future until you master this most essential rule set--love your enemies more than yourself.

Not pity them. Not get inside their heads. Not access their worldview.

That's all child's play--parlor games for TV talking heads.

I mean, really love them more than yourself. Connect in the worst way--humbling, humiliating, can't-look-away.

To me, that sort of knowledge isn't sympathy or empathy or any of the "-thies." To me, it's the most profound sort of understanding there is, making you capable of great intelligence and even wisdom in your strategic decision-making. You go way beyond the superficial understanding of his "loop" and how you get inside it. You really figure your opponent out in the deepest way. So this isn't some goofy religious belief system I'm trying to enunciate here. This isn't a form of intellectual withdrawal. I'm talking about a break-on-through-to-the-other-side type wisdom here--where the whole game slows down for you and you can see the entire playing field from a God's eye view. I'm talking about serious control--you know, making the Matrix bend to your will.

My wife Vonne has that capacity to a degree I will never know. I think it's why I fell so deeply in love with her and remain so to this day. Many--including too many very close to me--mistake that gift in her as a form of weakness, naivete, even stupidity. I have never understood this. I think she's the wisest person I know. My marriage is one big leveraging of her talent. I know for certain I would never be where I am today if I hadn't given in to that body-shaking sense that I could not possibly live without her--a feeling she made me entirely aware of on many occasions during our courtship. I just knew I had to get in on that secret she seemed to hold--that ability to look within the worst and somehow locate the best. I felt like I was with Christ when I was near her--she simply connected me to everything in a way I had only felt previously in church.

That's when I really located His kingdom on earth, and I saw everything differently ... oh, and married the minister's daughter!

Love your enemy more than yourself.

Only then can you see things clearly, without the fear that Mom and Dad and every mom and dad before them instilled out of their best definitions of love. It's not that they didn't know better, they just knew what they knew and wanted better--for you.

The trigger on this post? "Letters from Iwo Jima." Saw it tonight with the wife, along with the "King of Scotland"--a horrible movie marred by a world-class (and Oscar winning) performance by Forrest Whittaker. The first movie loved its enemy more than itself, the second movie was a pathetic make-believe with a fictional lead that allowed the audience to stay distant, superior, and unloving throughout (Clint Eastwood--genius, Kevin MacDonald--panderer).

I know, I know. Whole lotta cutting loose for just two movies. But I wrote about that in BFA: being the grand strategist means you're always--ALWAYS--in school, every minute of your life.

And it's pretty cool, actually.

Go with your Lord. I've got mine.