Militarization

Militarization is the process of increasingly putting civilian parts or segments of social systems under political and military control or influence.

Through militarization, military behavior and purposing of civilian activities including the involvement of private (business) organizations, providing services and products become normalized.

Also, people and social organizations are influenced to accept more and resist less and activitely contribute to military objectives. Militarization is a form of Co-optation of civil organization to work for, support and comply with objectives of the state.

In the economy, militarization occurs when military, defense or security authorities contract business to provide products, services, research, and innovation. Civil society becomes interwoven with the military and security activities of the state, and co-dependent on them.

The interweaving and submission of civil and economic activities occurs through paid contracts, providing jobs, subsidies to innovate and test equipment, attract capital from financial institutions, activing as co-investments by the economy to match state expenses on the military and security apparatus.

When the interwovenness assumes such a degree that private companies specialize on delivering to the military, the Industrial-Military Complex (IMC) grows.

The IMC becomes state-led and state-controlled, whilst the state shifts state activities to private ones, effectively putting democratic scrutiny and control at arm's length (pun intended).

The civil and private becomes public and military. Thus, civil and private economic actors become a power factor, as they hold power to surveillance, influence and harm third parties, including other countries and non-state actors outside their own jurisdiction.

Militarization is a phenomenon omnipresent in totalitarian or fascist concepts of the state. In Germany it was part of the rise of national socialism. Equally, it is a necessary component of a state concept built on End of Times narratives, to which "Fortress States" are then the ideological answer, presented as a necessary step to isolate and wall-off itself, providing protection against whatever it is that the ideology calls out to be the culprit of the End of Times: immigrants, specific religious groups, specific social groups.

Militarization influences, and is influenced by, the suppression of distinctions in communication that would challenge or criticize fortress state concepts, or even promote other solutions. "If you´re not with us, you´re against us" becomes the simplied distinction.

These distinctions then serve as a base to purge schools, museums, political proposals, mass media languages, suppress and deny the existence of other schools of thought then the state´s one and only one.

The process of militarization and its role in serving the formation of Totalitarian States has been well-described by early 20th century writers, who were witness, commentator and victim of the national socialist regime: Thomas Mann, Kurt Tucholsky, among others.

Against this background, it is easy to understand that military organizations such as NATO, and armed forces take an in interest in Future Analysis. To have invincible power, and the power to intimidate or harm third parties requires a sound understanding of future scenarios.

It does not come as a surprise that the movement and discipline of Sustainability, by definition building civilian and private knowledge on the future we are likely to have or wish to have becomes a threat to the totalitarian state. This movement is now being militarized as well. First by reframing it as "Woke and Weak" in the mass media. Second, by paralysing the movement´s advanced and refined distinctions to define problems and solutions and replacing them with course and generic distinctions that encapsulate and isolate advanced and critical thinking. For example, removing the sense of urgency of climate change by silencing its voice, as well as the the purging of prohibiting alternative views on Diversity, Equality and inclusion has the potential to rob people of critical and fact-based analysis of their futures, as well as reducing the likelihood that legislative or policy proposals could be passed that do not coincide entirely with the totalitarian state.

While it is not entirely clear what and whom the state protects (perhaps only: the obedient, the silenc and the state itself), democratic controls to envisage other futures is clearly weakened.

If this project succeeds, Sustainability as a Solution might be turned and held captive as Sustainability as the Problem. Remember Hate is Love and War is Peace newspeak from George Orwell´s 1984?