An interesting exhibit about Genghis Khan’s “enduring legacy” hit the Denver Museum of Nature and Science two years ago and continues its US tour, so you can still learn about “the ruthless warlord who conquered half the known world,” but who “is also revered as an innovative leader and statesman who brought unity, stability, and much more to his people.”
 
When it comes to curatorial decisions at a museum, I always wonder: why now? Indeed it’s hard to deny, when you look a little deeper, that Genghis Khan was a renaissance man for the Bilderberg set.
 
No seriously. Genghis Khan used to vie with Attila the Hun for most cruel overlord. Their reputations for inhumanity defied the western imagination. Now apparently it’s thought that both leaders of barbarian hordes have been undervalued, and dare it be suggested, unfairly maligned? I’ll tell you what’s happened. It’s becoming transparent that the techniques of Western war making, invasion, mass killing and ruthless administration of foreign occupation look a lot like the work of Khan. So it’s small wonder elements in our culture want to pay him tribute.

A key to what drove the Mongols to exterminate all the peoples in their path was that they had no need for them, their cities and hungry mouths. The Mongols and the Huns needed only grasslands for their herds and yurts. Expanding agricultural societies were cancerous tumors against their interests. Except for craftsmen who offered goods which the growing nouveaux riche Mongols could appreciate, they had no use for non-Mongols.

I’m thinking about the jet-set now, surrounded by the hoi poloi who are no longer needed in factories and fields now fully mechanized. Except for the outward most reaches of exploitable third world labor, they have no use for common man. If they were Khan they could just queue us up to kill us. When it came to thinking about sustainable populations on limited environmental resources, he had an unappreciated wisdom that Khan.