Evolution has no morality. The dinosaurs did not become extinct because they were immoral. Neanderthal Man did not disappear from the face of the Earth for being more corrupt or more decadent than early humanity. They were weaker, not physically but less able to adapt and survive against humans with larger brains, their millions of years of evolution bested by our own. Survival of the fittest is a concept used as an excuse by some to break laws, was in the last century used as an excuse to write or uphold unjust or punitive laws against certain groups, used to justify aggression against other countries or other peoples, but it is in the grand scheme of things the only law.

        We can deny this, we can cry out against it and think we know better how the universe should operate, that good should in the end triumph over evil, that truth or reason should prevail over lies or subterfuge, or misapprehensions. Such notions of a just and completely fair universe are comforting, part of our hopes, collective, naive, in our hearts we long that this is really how it is or one day might be, but it is not now and never will be that way, not in this reality. In the physical universe what survives is what kills anything which threatens it. 

        Democracy did not arise because it was fairer than monarchies. Dictators and monarchs have replaced more democratic regimes in the past, just as more democratic systems of recent centuries have displaced existing monarchies. Notions of democracy, or rather republics of elected overseers and lawmakers, evolved because they were able to, in pockets when the populace was sufficiently willing, capable, educated, and armed enough to challenge the proceeding systems of government, for the citizens to demand and take more power for themselves. The more monarchies or dictatorships fought against such change as a threat to the accepted notion of monarchical rule, the more such newly empowered republics saw the existence of monarchies as their enemy and fought back with propaganda to turn the citizens of monarchies against their rulers. 

        In the absence of complete suppression of a populace, which would literally entail armed soldiers everywhere ready to immediately suppress all forms of dissent, which some nations actually attempt, propaganda rules. Governments without complete suppression of their populaces exist at the mercy or will of the people who are able to change it, whether by election or force. Thus more important than anything else, what people believe about their existing governments, whether they deem them just or unjust, whether they think they serve their interests or not, becomes tantamount to anything else and is the first and greatest test of its long term survival. Nations can be conquered, new institutions put in place but what people believe in their culture to be the best form of government will always reassert itself, thus the only war that matters in the long run is the war against the cultures themselves. Culture is what preserves and defines a people when a system of government is imposed upon them and only by integrating itself into its populaces culture can systems of governments survive there over time. 

        This propaganda war which turned citizens against their self-anointed Kings, or attempted to turn citizens of capitalist republics against their rulers, these are no longer propaganda in the true sense of the word, that of governments to get their own citizens to believe what their government wishes them to believe, propaganda now due to increased access to others around the world is now borderless and has been for sometime and travels as freely as trade. Each time a citizen of one culture interacts with a citizen of another is an opportunity for such beliefs to be put forth, education by one definition, subversion by another, to take place. And with the rise of the Internet such one on one mini-cultural exchanges will accelerate beyond measure. Anyone anywhere is now a possible target for recruitment by private armies, hate groups, cults, political ideals or party affiliations, and every citizen a knowing or unknowing carrier of their own doctrines instilled in them by their governments or cultures. 

        Such exchanges have been growing for centuries with expanded trade between nations and have lead to a flourishing of scientific and academic knowledge, and have lead to greater empowerment of the average citizen of all countries. This has lead many to believe that such interaction is a form of social evolution which is inevitable, or at the very least unquestionably good. Surely one cannot dismiss an improvement in the health or longevity of life to be good, yet as humanity becomes more of a common mind one of two negative possibilities will tend to reoccur. Either one belief system becomes accepted as being good or right, and others become discouraged, a sort of cultural totalitarianism, or camps emerge with large numbers of citizens in one or many countries lining up behind one set of beliefs which spring up in opposition to another or others. Thus the more people weighing in on the same issues, the same beliefs, the greater the scale of the potential consequences should what could be a healthy exchange of opinions degenerate into polarities should lesser notions diminish leaving only a few systems of beliefs to vie for dominance, as will tend to occur in a natural state. 

        Prosperity is the ultimate propaganda. No matter what else can be said about justice or injustice, poverty or decadence, short of outright physical or lethal domination over another, which beliefs which seem to have lead to the greatest success of the camps doing the propagandizing, this works better than almost any theoretical abstractions based on morality. Should the United States have remained a (politically speaking) minor agricultural nation throughout the 20th century, the world would be unrecognizable from how it is today. Though all of the elements which lead to this prosperity cannot be duplicated elsewhere such as vast natural resources, plentiful aritable agricultural land, a constant influx of the best and brightest of all disciplines, many nations see strength and wish to emulate it, or those nations which may wish to conquer or predominate over others see these ways as the best ways to achieve this. Should other systems, political or cultural, appear stronger, other nations will flock to them as happened with Fascism. Though Communism in the Soviet and Chinese forms aspired to such upsurgency, it never really caught on given the greater economic superiority of the Western Nations, and all countries or peoples aspire to be successful. 

        Any present system of government will be staunchly defended against any new forms which present themselves, even if it is suspected that the upstarts may indeed be more just than the present ones, just as monarchies tried to thwart the spread of democratic ideals. The real threat as born out by the events of the 20th century point out, a particular systems dominance comes not from a threat from one country or another, but from ideas themselves. And when any country or government or philosophy seeks to monitor ideas for the purpose of perpetuation of its own standing over rivals within or from the world community, it is already showing its major shortcoming from a moral standpoint. The trouble is every country, every government, and every international political movement is guilty of this no matter how much they claim to support free speech or free thought. Someone somewhere always will say too much free speech is dangerous, and those attempting wrong speech must be silenced or discredited. The good countries do it, the bad countries do it. Only by doing it will they survive in their present states. 

        Unfortunately living means outgrowing the present into an ever changing future and the more any nation tries to prevent such growth or change, the further it slides into despotism. In this nation or that, by this system or that, people within a state will experiment with new definitions of government, redefine the notions of citizenship, and in so-called "free" or blatantly unfree countries this will be suppressed or discredited. People will attempt such changes for many different reasons, but for many, because they think such changes will make the world or their small portion of it more just. Notions of what is just will never completely remain the same. And if they are successful, if more inclusive notions of all peoples rights being equal no matter where on this Earth they had the good fortune or misfortune of being born unto, some in the future may erroneously ascribe their predecessors success as we wrongly do ours, to evolution. 

        The success of our children against all present and any future suppression of the will for our planet to change politically to an unknown on a global scale, to become by our imperfect notions of justice more just, depends solely on our teaching them to see that all that is taught to us from cradle to grave is to get us to be, think, and act like the best citizen, member of our culture, regardless of how right or just those notions may really be, and that they should and must learn to judge everything independently of what they are told, for true or not, we are told only what our culture thinks we should know, and usually only believe what it is in the interest of those in power to have us believe. But most importantly to have the strength in their own convictions of right and wrong that run contrary to what they see being done around them. Injustice always has to explain itself, what we know in our hearts to be right need not be taught, not advertised, just awakened by concepts as abstract as truth, justice, beauty, and equality, and always seeking to expand them to all.