Unity is more than just a reason to rebel.

Capitalism, and Colonialism, is happy about disunity.

Because it is more easily manipulate able, and it would give the people, and all the bottom-up people a place to rebel, a place to change, or even a place to put hope into, after it is changed. But at least they are not incapable to make a change, because they know how, and where to go, to change their world, and they also could very closely and detailed observe this centre, if it is corrupted.

As you could see in China or colonial Spain, as older and as more universal a state is, the better can the population can influence the centre, because the paths from the bottom are well established.

Thus for example China was able to change, even without technological change. Just because new Ideas were able to rise, in a well established system, that knows only its people, and no particular interest groups in spheres that the un-universal unit cannot control, like colonies, and not influenced by pressure from outside, or in relation to the others.

Thus we can change the world, if we are not constantly shattered by new realities we have to cope with. Now that we have achieved new technologies to cope with the other new realities, like a large world and technologies, it may be finally possible to unite universally, through better understanding and tolerance of diversity, and federational universalism.


Yes, the centralised system could also control the people, but at least, they would know what to rebel against.
The last fifty years we knew, in a very stupid way to rebel against. But this was the better worse.
You can observe every time, when a big country, a universal country emerged, it emerged with conflict, but in the end it established, some universalities.
So did the Persians & Egyptians, compared to the old Greeks, as well as Alexander did it.
The first emperor of China did it, against the Warring States, the Roman emperors did it, Mohamed did it, the Church tried it, but jumped onto a sinking concept, of the remnants of the Roman Empire, the Mongols did it, the Spanish tried it, and also failed, the British too late and reluctantly tried it and failed. The Communists tried and failed, the Liberals ...? You see, capitalism is the essence of cooperation. But not between people and state, but between company and state, between particular parts and A centre, not the centre.
In Spain, the Conquistadores won, in later European colonialism, nationalism won, capitalism won against the communism?
None of them was fit to dominate those particularistic actors, those particularistic, not universal actors. Only unity can provide universalism.

Thus size matters, especially all known incorporating unity.

Because in that moment, when your state is not universal, those particular actors can dictate you, you are addicted to them, because you are not universal.
But that also means, that you should be governed universally, otherwise you will not last long, that I can promise you, because then you give the best reason to the universal mass to rebel against you. How you achieve this universally is secondary. Maybe by theology, by god emperor, or by communism, idealism, democracy, etc. it doesn't matter, but if the system is not universal anymore, it will come down in time. As did China. For its realm, it was universal, but it came down, if it was not universal anymore. Then it lost the mandate of heaven, to rule all under heavens.

If states like Spain, or Greece, or Europe as one political terrain, was not able to achieve this, they would become racist, ignorant and totalitarian. Europe failed to unite with or after Napoleon, and it became nationalistic, it lost faith in the universalism of the universal ideas of the French Revolution. Till it finally thought its lesson itself.
Spain failed, and never achieved to control America in a universal just way, and even provoked institutions like the inquisition, or the religious wars, because finally it became clear that, the Holy Roman Empire failed to establish some sort of universalism, and will not achieve that, because it never conquered all their enemies. Thus Spain and thus the Holy Roman Empire could not controle universally America, and was attritioned by the English, or France, or Rome, because the Holy Roman Empire was not able to convince in reality, nor virtual those lands to unite. Thus a lot of particularism happened, because it was needed, because it there was no concept yet, to unite Europe especially colonial Europe, which was that quick changing, that new uniting concepts, like Christianity, or Protestantism, or the French Revolution could unite it. This emerged and important particularism, always creates a lot of discrimination and selectivity, because it is a long enduring revolution for unity. Thus capitalism, and racism is a product of disunity.
Thus for five hundred years the world is in an open struggle for unity, that is really universal for the whole world. But this world expanded that much, that it never got a break. This is already going like this that long, that this particularism has itself integrated, into this global disunity that much, that it is pushing this world always further, always destroying the unity it became to agglomerate. The Nazis where a symptom, that the particularism overheated, and cried out for one last grasp for life. But it had to fail, because the world was already too universal to be particulated again, some sort of universalism was establish already, which didn't allow it to destroy it. But never the less, the world couldn't decide yet which universalism to accept. Equality or liberty. Now finally it seems, that they understood it. That both of those universal concepts, are universal, and that they have to coexist and be merged, and cooperated to establish the final, long awaited global universalism.

Thus China understood it, Egypt understood it, that universalism is important, nothing else. Because it will automatically create liberty and equality.
Rome stumbled, because it was to poorly universal, in the case of religion, slavery, and Barbarians. Barbarians were always the biggest danger to unity and universalism, because they came from beyond the realm of awareness, as Persia and China had to learn for so often.
I think, that not all those old cultures where un-just hells. Because when they really established unity, and universalism, they where as egalitarian and libertarian, as their technological level, and density could allow it to be generated.
This is the big confusion, not technology changes the world, but the drive to unite universally again this expanded reality.
And that is what we witnessed the last 500 years, not an extraordinary endeavour, but a try to unite universally the worlds that came into the awareness of the people, against all the participative actors, agglomerated in the concept of capitalism, or competitive thus unequal and illiberal thinking.

Thus we Europeans, finally should learn, that unity is not something bad, but that it is something good, at least, because then you know what you can rebel against, and then distances and differences in reality will not matter anymore. This we should finally learn from China, which has the longest tradition of that, with ancient Persia and Egypt, and the true goal of religions, and thus theocracies.
But what we especially should learn, that unity is nothing opposite to change, hope or evolution, and development, how china could again prove. And that constant change is also not good, because it creates more particularism, and thus undermines the unity and universality, because society can not follow (virtual) the real changes.
This is something what you can also see in China. That it knew too fast change is bad for the stability and unity, and that was something that the Europeans didn't learn yet, and maybe just should learn by urged to it, by mother nature, which as well cannot cope with the fast real changes.

So when, liberty and equality is not what the big achievement of the last 500 years are, they are just for the changed new real situations, a renewed achievement, like for the colonial or industrial, and now information (which needs both universal concepts to prevail) reality, but for the old, it was well established, as better, as further the period stayed and didn't change, as long as that, it was able to be fine-tuned and generated, thus these ideals were always there, just differently set into motion, just specified for the diverse and special situaitons and units of their space and time.

Thus the achievement of this for so long not stabilizing and always changing reality, is that we learned the importance of universalism.
Thus we wouldn’t even need to follow the concepts of exploration, because following this theory, all that change is not due to exploration, that particular actors did, which thus shook the unity, stability and universalism, but all those achievements where reached, by the dream of universalism.
Which thus is true. BUT, we also should have learned out of this, that not only universalism, should be reached not only for our known realm, but also for new realities and territories, otherwise they will crush the unity, and will have to form a new unity and universalism, by a troublesome path.


Thus the real message should be, that unity is the answer to universalism.
Thus we should endeavour as much as possible always for the wish to reach a greater universalism. But never forgetting, that it should not generate particularism. All for the sake of exploration, which thus further exists for the sake of universalism, and the most important tool for achieving is the dialog/cooperation in diversity, accepting and favouring diversity, thus liberty, always trying to generate a greater universalism, thus concentrating, not to generating domination over others, but rather unity, egalitarian and libertarian, thus true universalism, otherwise you will destroy the unity and universality for the sake of change and development, and create particularism, nationalism, discrimination, racism, ideological or religious conflicts etc.
But conflicts are always a product of loosing universalism, thus if conflict rises, it is a sign, that the system is not open, not equal enough to be universal that much, that it can unite even the rebels, thus they have all rights to rebel.
The only problem is, if the unity was already before not universal, and the country could be manipulated from outside, and thus the conflict could be misunderstood as conflict of inner un-universalism, but in reality, it is a result of our un-universalism. That’s the reason why autonomy is so important, so that every administrative unit, can define its universals, to be a unity, equally, that can generate a trans-national universalism, and thus unity.

Thus the next time, we achieve unity (which seems close at hand, because the people begin to accept liberty & equality as equal universals, and at the same time begin to understand the importance of unity in diversity = Obama), and we want to reach new realities, we always be aware, that all new realities should be under a complete unity, even if it is not the same unit that united all other till then. Because we should know if you want to endeavour into new realities, you need new universals, and you should prevent everything to become particulated, and out of control from the unity. But at the same time, you should be aware, that the old unity with its universals will not be able to provide this (see Serenity, no new universals for the border regions, and for new diversity). Thus we should be bold enough to endeavour in new universals, within a new unity, above the old, not letting to be dictated by any participative minority, and interest group, or discrimative groups, because of their fear of disunity, among the old unit, or the new. It should be universalized by the universals of equal and free diversity, thus tolerance.
Thus future colonists, will be in a new unity, united by new universals, which they will not govern but through their right for universal equality and liberty in diversity, for their unit and its governing by them, within the greater unity.
This new universal unity but only may be created over those units, and thus unite them, only then when either unit, decides to join or be introduced to that universalism. Otherwise you would destroy not only their unity and universals, but also yours, because you squeeze another system of unity, into yours and thus destroy your own universalism, because it is not anymore, because new reality became part of the new unity.

Goal is, that a star base ("Outland") may not dictate the centre anything, because it can put pressure on it, because the centre is fragmented and thus has to fear, that the missing unity, will seduce the particular star base or star base company and will join the other fragmented parts of the others, as the colonial empires always had to fear, especially the Spanish. But by that, equality and liberty will also be able to be established in the star base or colony.
But if this reality is too new and distantly real, (like in Serenity) it will not be able to be governed, by the old universals and unity, thus a new would have to be generated, parallel to the old, united in a greater unit, more universal at least. Otherwise the arrogant and discrimative will rule over minorities. But not for long I can predict you, because unity and universalism must be achieved, if not conflict is inevitable.

Every dominant ruler has the obligation to be universal, by accepting diversity, if you want to achieve unity, in equality and liberty, not letting any particularists rule you or the others within your unity.

Unity by diversity (diverse units)!

There is not only one unity or universal, there are endless, thus never think that you have found the perfect and only, but at the same time always try to unite universally, not forgetting, that not the unity is the important thing, but the universality that makes the unity possible.