OVERCOMING INVISIBLE FOES

Fighting fictitious foes, using fictitious space fighters and fictitious laser beams, attacking foreign worlds, or being invaded by alien raiders in a galaxy not so far away. The 21st century fox was the only one to experience this; how times have changed. With the exception of the sparse open military conflict that now exists in some, if not all, nations around the world, all of the battles that our allegedly carnage civilizations wage are against intangible foes.

In the case of animosity toward "impoverishment," a veiled qualifier that no one really understands and whose definition offends the 800 million or so legitimately impoverished people in the globe. Then, using complex statistical simulations, we prove that a certain percentage of society will always be considered "poor," regardless of how prosperous we grow.

From the youngest child to the most enlightened professor, exerting combat against the patriarchy, another invisible entity that is meant to rule our life. The unseen power that grants men (in general) some never-defined privilege vis-à-vis women is claimed to dominate even the most liberal, egalitarian, and open societies, in which women and men live their own lives as they see fit to a greater extent than ever before in human history.

Before we can firmly demonstrate that a steadily increasing air quantity is dangerous, we must first battle carbon monoxide, an invisible chemical that requires specialist equipment to detect and university-level training to convolutely appraise.

Humans struggle with the tyranny of biology and chromosomes, which reduces our physical bodies to acting as props for our utterly convinced minds: I belong in a different kind of body, and God forbid you cast doubt on that invisible persuasion or take any actions that impede my unimpeded progress in that direction.

One may participate in women's sports, go into women's shelters and locker rooms, and police the words or beliefs of anyone who dares to say "Hang on a minute..." as a person who has just discovered one's imagined womanhood.

The battle against offending people is on since, in modern society, opinions are frequently formed based on emotions rather than logic or facts. Feelings are the ideal invisible enemy because they are completely subjective, difficult to observe, and still carry the greatest stigma. They can change in an instant. We teach our children to not offend or harm people's feelings, but since the offense is judged by the victim, the war will never stop.

And now, thanks to the marvelous Covid-19, people have yet another invisible enemy to add to the list of targets that are acceptable. This enemy is always waiting to strike at our young minds and improbably vulnerable bodies since there haven't been any concepts about who is in ownership of it.

Tim Stanley in The Telegraph writes about George Orwell's idea of eternal war as a mechanism for leaders to control the populace in Nineteen Eighty-Four, starting with the most recent of our invisible foes. Make sure we continue to be oppressed, terrified, and divided: "War is peace because it ensures elite power." With a 60%+ vaccination rate, one may add, Stanley is writing about Britain's policy interventions for the epidemic and the coming prospect that restrictions on the impoverished Brits — who have already suffered too many government crimes in the last fifteen months — may not be lifted.

Since the Covid-19 coronavirus is imperceptible to the human eye and can only be detected through tests and specialist equipment (sometimes with a delay), anyone, anywhere could pose a risk to you. The mystique surrounding the pandemic made the threat of extreme and unpredictable harm invisible, rather than the infection itself. Always be on the alert and wary.

Stanley contends that maintaining a constant invisible foe is a useful weapon for a government eager to exert control over the lives of its citizens. Stanley says, "Sickness is health because it automates continual care." He accurately describes the Covid-19 question, but he doesn't go far enough because his arguments hold true for a lot more subjects.

Another example is poverty, a condition that is difficult for us to objectively define but one that we may subjectively understand. The European Union clearly captures income disparity rather than deprivation when it defines poverty as "60% of national median equivalised disposable income." There wouldn't be statistical poverty unless there were income gaps that were sufficiently small (i.e., the lowest incomes were sufficiently close to the median). It's debatable whether certain individuals would actually be impoverished, and the battle right now is over whether other people believe they are.

America has also been exceptional at battling poverty, an enemy that cannot be seen. The official poverty rate had been declining for years when Lyndon Johnson proclaimed the "War on Poverty" in 1964, eventually settling into a long-term range of between 11 and 15%. Despite billions of dollars in aid, employment assistance, and welfare programs, nothing seemed to have helped this socially disadvantaged group. Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes came at such conclusion in a Cato Policy Analysis commemorating the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty.

"In recent years, we have increased spending on an increasing number of initiatives with little to no added benefit. More importantly, the War on Poverty has not succeeded in reducing poverty or boosting the economic mobility of the underprivileged and children.

It nearly by definition guarantees that a portion of the population will be labeled poor when incomes are calculated as being below three times the cost of a minimal diet, but it still fails to account for the costs of housing and health care, which are of the utmost importance. Additionally, government assistance programs like food stamps and the earned income tax credit don't go into the income calculation, making the target variable of the policy fully insensitive to any relief initiatives. A fantastic formula for eternal policies that keep the mirage alive and the specter looming.

The struggle never ends since that is the whole point of fighting against undetectable foes. There is no unconditional triumph or armistice. There is no evaluation of the situation on the field of combat or the future. Therefore, the battle rages on indefinitely with no end in sight, and nobody actually wants it to cease.

Franchise, no-fault divorce, pills, and abortion were just a few of the victories that the feminist movements of the 20th century enjoyed. A new generation of activists took up the rallying cry and continued to advance with increasing ferocity. Whether or if the war was worthwhile is irrelevant. Despite equal pay laws, paid parental leave, and tax-funded kindergarten, the war against patriarchy hasn't even come close to being won. Now we must overcome the next challenge: sexual displays, heterosexual dress codes, subtle behavioral differences at work, sex-differences in career choices, and work-life balance that are invisible to everyone but a statistically-equipped bureaucrat who aggregates results across millions of people.

How Can People Make Sense of This? Our invisible wars are somewhat related to the Saint George mythology from medieval times. According to legend, an evil dragon sought tribute from Silene. At first, simply sheep; later, the dragon increased his (her? their?) demands to include elective human sacrifices. Saint George bravely and chivalrously set out to destroy the dragon when the king's daughter was selected, upholding all the Christian values and lessons of a magnificent story when he afterwards distributed the king's gifts to the city's underprivileged.

Kenneth Minogue, an Australian political theorist and fellow USYD student, once provided a description of what transpired to our cherished hero after performing his heroic deed. He became discouraged and worried as he searched for more dragons to slay:

"He had to have his dragons. He could only support himself by defending the rights of the populace, the disadvantaged, the exploited, and the colonially oppressed. He ran out of breath chasing smaller and smaller dragons like an old warrior."

This "St. George in retirement" condition was revived a few years ago by Douglass Murray in his book Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race, and Identity. When George returns from his heroic combat in the "syndrome" extension, he becomes restless and seeks the high of his recent past. Uncertain of whether there is still anything to kill, he sets out to kill small dragons, then anything that even vaguely resembles a dragon, and eventually he ends himself swinging fiercely at nothing. The truly epic wars ultimately gave way to fantasies, leaving the formerly honorable warrior without a goal or a great conflict to fight.

Our cultures are currently enmeshed in an endless conflict with undetectable foes. Covid-19 or any of its many offspring are the most recent adversaries to join the fray.