End of an Empire

[Dr. Haight]

What will cause the collapse of the United States empire?

[Madrigal]

Undermining their political legitimacy all over the world by attempting to dominate through sheer military might.

[Vagabond]

China.

[Dr. Haight]

China.
That's my opinion as well.

Additonally... the eventual defeat within the world war for natural resources - more specifically, energy resources.

[melancholeric]

Peak oil, foreign debt, dollar devaluing, and outsourcing.

[Jasz]

Undermining their political legitimacy all over the world by attempting to dominate through sheer military might.

domination is hardly a goal in itself, using their military might to protect their specific interests would be more accurate. though this can still backfire i doubt that lack/ decline of political legitimacy will cause the end of the/ any empire, particularly since military might = political legitimacy

i think the "empire" could "fall" due to implosion (not sufficient resources to fund military might), or due to weakened relatively military might as other powers ascend

[sbw]

hyperinflation.

Scott

[charred_heart]

The U.S starting a world war, in which China is not involved.

[sbw]

The U.S starting a world war, in which China is not involved.

at this point, given that china is way more important than europe, I think anything appropriately called WWIII would have to include china.

Scott

[qsr6063]

Arrogance.

[sbw]

National Bankruptcy, Part 1

The Daily Reckoning

Ouzilly, France

Tuesday, August 01, 2006


"I sing of ARMs and the Man..." - Virgil's Aeneid

We don't really have that much more to sing about ARMs, dear readers, but we just couldn't resist the headline. Still, now that we think about it, our cautionary tale is likely to end just as bloodily as any epic poem we've read. Imagine what would happen if mortgages were adjusted upwards to rates anywhere near 10% - or anywhere near where they were 25 years ago?

That is why the Bernanke Fed cannot really fight inflation or stagflation the way Paul Volcker once did. Too many homeowners wouldn't be able to afford it. ARMS were meant to give marginal borrowers flexibility. Instead, they have locked both the borrowers and the Fed itself into...well, leg-irons. The borrowers have no margin. Most cannot afford even the slightest boost in their payments. And with such boosts now automatic, the Fed can only react to inflation threats by prevaricating.

According to David Rosenberg at Merrill, discretionary items are now rising at a 5% annual rate - far beyond Ben Bernanke's target. But what can he do?

ARMs were supposed to be a way to realize the American dream of home ownership. But, like much else in American life, that dream too has been hollowed out.

For two reasons. The first is "declining marginal utility." The more you have of something, the less each additional unit is worth to you. A little defense is precious. But add more soldiers, weapons...more office workers, consultants, crony contractors and pension programs, the less real defense you get for your dime. And eventually, if you spend enough, you get a negative return...as we have in the Middle East today. There, once, only a few extremists hated us. Now, a couple of hundred thousand soldiers and two wars later, whole countries and civilizations hate us. And, we are less secure than ever. The marginal utility of defense spending has fallen below zero.

The second reason for the hollowing of America is that the horde of parasites aging institutions, picks up managers, hangers-on, hustlers, opportunists - who pursue their own agendas, and subvert their clients' goals.

And so it is with the American home. People fantasize about the peace of mind, the security, and the independence they will get from owning their own piece of earth. Even if things go against them, they tell themselves wistfully, at least they will have a place to rest their heads...a castle of their own where they will be king, emperor, tyrant, and elected chief-of-state all at once. Home sweet home.

But look what they actually get. Peace of mind? Security? Independence? Only if they are comatose enough not to notice the incessant barrage of property taxes, zoning laws, building codes, and mortgage payments that rains down on them from the first day they become owners. In fact, with today's mortgages, they never actually own their house - it owns them!

The kings of today's castles are not independent; they're chained to the grindstone of work to meet mortgage payments. And they're not secure: miss a payment, and their houses are snatched from them. They have no peace of mind; the dream of free and clear ownership swings perpetually just beyond their grasp, like Tantalus's grapes. Our kings switch from one mortgage to another like galley slaves trying out oars.

And well they know it. People may be slow to think, but they are fast enough to feel. In surveys of American attitudes, pollsters have discovered that people already have a vague feeling that they are not as well off as their parents, and that they expect to be even less well off in the future. Of course, social scientists and economists dismiss these sentiments in favor of the numbers. Per capita consumption, they claim, is way up over the last half century. People have two and a half times as many cars and watch a lot more television. They earn more money. They have about three times as much house per person and graduate from college more often. They can now go into supermarkets and select from as many as 200 different kinds of breakfast cereal. How's that for a great country?

Thus the number crunchers prevaricate. But behind the dissembling numbers are the sentiments that tell the truth. People feel worse off because their real quality of life is falling. Real earnings - after inflation and taxes - have been falling for the working stiff for the last 30 years. Highway traffic moves more slowly. It's harder to find a parking place. People spend more on education and health care - with less to show for it. They work more hours than before, only to have more shopping malls than high schools. They use vastly more energy than the rest of the denizens of the planet and make more per hour, but they live in a way scarcely better...and perhaps much worse.

All institutions age, decay, and collapse, we observe. Even the American dream...

(from thedailyreckoning.com)

Scott

[Stillwater]

Too many debts, public and private, becoming unserviceable- and a lack of willing creditors.

Non-dollar denominated petro bourse.

Dwindling oil and gas supplies.

Climate change impacting agriculture.

Military overreach.

Baby boomers.

China.

[shaytana]

Canada.

[Jasz]

Canada.

dream on

[sbw]

Canada.

:lol:

Sheila: Times have changed
Our kids are getting worse
They won't obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Liane: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: No, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
And flapping heads so full of lies
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: We need to form a full assault
Everyone: It's Canada's fault!
Sharon: Don't blame me
For my son Stan
He saw the damn cartoon
And now he's off to join the Klan!
Liane: And my boy Eric once
Had my picture on his shelf
But now when I see him he tells me to fuck myself!
Sheila: Well, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: It seems that everything's gone wrong
Since Canada came along
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Copy Guy: They're not even a real country anyway
Ms. McCormick: My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer rich and true,
Instead he burned up like a piggy on the barbecue
Everyone: Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the fire?
Or the doctors who allowed him to expire?
Sheila: heck no!
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their hockey hullabaloo
Liane: And that bitch Anne Murray too
Everyone: Blame Canada
Shame on Canada
For...
The smut we must stop
The trash we must bash
The Laughter and fun
Must all be undone
We must blame them and make a fuss
Before someone thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus!!!!

[qsr6063]

Canada.

Canada did beat you at war, once.

EDIT: clarification

[Tolbruk]

Two ways:

1) Economic collapse brought on by dwindling foreign investment to float the insanely excess borrowing. Who cares if debt is only X% of the GDP...at the end of the day, if you can't pay the bills, you're still defaulting on a loan.

2) Canada

[JBHunt]

It's all about thermodynamics.
U.S. needs a closed system where matter doesn't come in and heat (technology) doesn't dissipate.

[Stillwater]

:lol: oh yeah-I forgot Canada. They do have the US by the short curlies (see energy resources), but they're just too darn nice to yank them. For now anyway. :mellow:

[qsr6063]

:lol: oh yeah-I forgot Canada. They do have the US by the short curlies (see energy resources), but they're just too darn nice to yank them. For now anyway. :mellow:

And the US would never invade another country for their oil.

[libertarianjim]

President Hilary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi

[Stillwater]

And the US would never invade another country for their oil.

Never! We just install right wing prime ministers from the oil patch. If that doesn't work, we brand anyone smelling of maple syrup or wearing a beaver pelt toque a terrorist.

[Dr. Haight]

President Hilary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Ouch.

I think I just figured out what your User Title will be.

[qsr6063]

Never! We just install right wing prime ministers from the oil patch. If that doesn't work, we brand anyone smelling of maple syrup or wearing a beaver pelt toque a terrorist.

Are you suggesting Steven Harper is a George Dubya suck up? :shock:

[coffeezombie]

The inability to fund cutting edge research due to religious qualms that countries like China do not have.

[Stillwater]

President Hilary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi

:offtopic: let's keep it in the mature section, okay?

[Ferrus]

Dependency on oil and an aging population.

[Ymir]

Multiculturalism will weaken the US. You will become so diverse that you have nothing in common anymore. With no social unity, corruption will increase and you will turn into Mexico.

[charred_heart]

Multiculturalism will weaken the US. You will become so diverse that you have nothing in common anymore. With no social unity, corruption will increase and you will turn into Mexico.uh oh (pssst: heil!)

[NoahFence]

Rich motherfuckers who need just one more boat

[SeierTapt]

A mixture of everything said before this post.

[Melody]

if jefferson had something to do w/ the united states' upbringing, it isnt gonna fall that easily. thats what i feel


----------------
china could try to be as powerful as it wants, but if its government doesnt scale well to technological progress, it will break. u cant keep things like tianmen and a shitty government secret if ppl on the block have a webcam and a blog/website, even considering censorship -- the government wont be able to keep up

not to mention the government is very important even w/o respect to technology. it will have to change a lot from its current form

im not a history kind of guy, but is there a short explanation why the USSR collapsed, and what the state of its technology/power was at the time?


----------------
about the outsourcing/thermodynamics thing. i wrote a short essay thingie here http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=44331#post44331

basically, outsourcing is good

[Claverhouse]

Multiculturalism will weaken the US. You will become so diverse that you have nothing in common anymore. With no social unity, corruption will increase and you will turn into Mexico.

Absolutely correct.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


Dark and disheartening, even to heroic spirits, must have seemed the prospects of Germany when Arminius planned the general rising of his countrymen against Rome. Half the land was occupied by Roman garrisons; and, what was worse, many of the Germans seemed patiently acquiescent in their state of bondage. The braver portion, whose patriotism could be relied on, was ill-armed and undisciplined, while the enemy's troops consisted of veterans in the highest state of equipment and training, familiarized with victory and commanded by officers of proved skill and valor. The resources of Rome seemed boundless; her tenacity of purpose was believed to be invincible. There was no hope of foreign sympathy or aid; for "the self-governing powers that had filled the Old World had bent one after another before the rising power of Rome, and had vanished. The earth seemed left void of independent nations."


The German chieftain knew well the gigantic power of the oppressor. Arminius was no rude savage, fighting out of mere animal instinct or in ignorance of the might of his adversary. He was familiar with the Roman language and civilization; he had served in the Roman armies; he had been admitted to the Roman citizenship, and raised to the rank of the equestrian order. It was part of the subtle policy of Rome to confer rank and privileges on the youth of the leading families in the nations which she wished to enslave. Among other young German chieftains, Arminius and his brother, who were the heads of the noblest house in the tribe of the Cherusci, had been selected as fit objects for the exercise of this insidious system. Roman refinements and dignities succeeded in denationalizing the brother, who assumed the Roman name of Flavius, and adhered to Rome throughout all her wars against his country. Arminius remained unbought by honors or wealth, uncorrupted by refinement or luxury. He aspired to and obtained from Roman enmity a higher title than ever could have been given him by Roman favor. It is in the page of Rome's greatest historian that his name has come down to us with the proud addition of "Liberator hand dubie Germaniae."
...
Vast, however, and admirably organized as the fabric of Roman power appeared on the frontiers and in the provinces, there was rottenness at the core. In Rome's unceasing hostilities with foreign foes, and still more in her long series of desolating civil wars, the free middle classes of Italy had almost wholly disappeared. Above the position which they had occupied, an oligarchy of wealth had reared itself; beneath that position a degraded mass of poverty and misery was fermenting. Slaves; the chance sweepings of every conquered country; shoals of Africans, Sardinians, Asiatics, Illyrians, and others made up the bulk of the population of the Italian peninsula.

Sir Edward Creasy ---Gutenberg book on historians' takes... (http://library.beau.org/gutenberg/1/0/1/1/10114/10114-h/10114-h.htm)

[NoahFence]

Rome was not multicultural; they had slaves from many cultures. Far, FAR from the same thing.

They swallowed other cultures and digested them, rather than embracing them and coexisting with them.

[charred_heart]

Rome was not multicultural; they had slaves from many cultures. Far, FAR from the same thing.

They swallowed other cultures and digested them, rather than embracing them and coexisting with them.and they fell because of the muslims. Whoah! history repeating itself?

[LongSilence]

They swallowed other cultures and digested them, rather than embracing them and coexisting with them.
Completely unlike what the USA tried to do with Iraq...

Charred, I don't get it. Is that a reference to something?

[Jasz]

and they fell because of the muslims. Whoah! history repeating itself?

sounds good to me, eating falafel all day, drinking tea, running around in big white ropes without any underwear on - the life! ;)

[charred_heart]

Completely unlike what the USA tried to do with Iraq...

Charred, I don't get it. Is that a reference to something?which part? Early muslims did take over 3/4 of the Byzantine empire - so it had nothing to with their social dilemmas. The second part is just me being stupid, the situations are not the same and muslims today are certainly not the same.

[charred_heart]

sounds good to me, eating falafel all day, drinking tea, running around in big white ropes without any underwear on - the life! ;):P
Edit: oh, i meant :p

[Claverhouse]

Rome was not multicultural; they had slaves from many cultures. Far, FAR from the same thing.

They swallowed other cultures and digested them, rather than embracing them and coexisting with them.

You misread it: the nature of the Roman race had changed due to influx, from it's ( extremely ) simple-living Italic roots.


and they fell because of the muslims. Whoah! history repeating itself?

The Romans were not around by the time the Prophet was born: you are thinking of the Lower Empire ( and greater IMO ) known as the Byzantine. They called themselves Romans, but were not connected by blood or much tradition to Rome. The rest of the world called them Greeks.

And Islam itself will be practically dead in 500 years time, just as all religions die. Thanks mainly to secularism and progress.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Zephyrus055]

From the mounting problems that are not be tackled. Soon if a military autocrat doesn't save America, then nobody will.

I think Kevin Phillips, a talented and accomplished political scientist/strategist, has a lot of good information regarding America's potential collapse.

[charred_heart]

You misread it: the nature of the Roman race had changed due to influx, from it's ( extremely ) simple-living Italic roots.



The Romans were not around by the time the Prophet was born: you are thinking of the Lower Empire ( and greater IMO ) known as the Byzantine. They called themselves Romans, but were not connected by blood or much tradition to Rome. The rest of the world called them Greeks.
Claverhouse :ph34r:I'm sure they were known as the Romans at the time. At least that's how they are described by early muslims.
I think they were known as the Eastern Romans up until Victorian times where they became known as the Byzantines.

[LongSilence]

Retrospectively it makes sense to name the Empire after its core nation or city. Besides, the Byzantines had almost entirely deviated from "Rome-based" thinking and culture by the time the Muslims starting knocking at their gates.

[Ka.avik]

From the mounting problems that are not be tackled. Soon if a military autocrat doesn't save America, then nobody will.
one-world captaincy of the starship Earth, anyone?

Hopefully I won't live long enough to see that, but I'm kinda thinking the one-world government is gonna happen, as a result of the moderately likely USA / China dispute in the middle east. Do you know how many empires have bled themselves dry trying to conquer iraq? -- most of them, as I understand it.

We are near the end, of that I'm certain.
:joft:

[JBHunt]

sounds good to me, eating falafel all day, drinking tea, running around in big white ropes without any underwear on - the life! ;)
I do that now.

[charred_heart]

Retrospectively it makes sense to name the Empire after its core nation or city. Besides, the Byzantines had almost entirely deviated from "Rome-based" thinking and culture by the time the Muslims starting knocking at their gates.yes, but they were still technically occupiers.

[Claverhouse]

I'm sure they were known as the Romans at the time. At least that's how they are described by early muslims.

They were; or at least as Romanoi, then Greek for Romans, but this meant no more than describing them as christians --- or the fact that every culture describes non-members of their own culture as barbarians ( although the word should only apply to a specific set of ways and values during a stage in the race's growth: eg: not savages etc. )


I think they were known as the Eastern Romans up until Victorian times where they became known as the Byzantines.

Yes; but Rome itself went down in the 5th century after a long illness. The Eastern half continued and expanded under new management, but had little to do with the Rome of Cato or Marcus Aurelius, except the names.

That Rome fell to the Visigoths in the west; and the Sassinids in the East.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Jasz]

one-world captaincy of the starship Earth, anyone?

Hopefully I won't live long enough to see that, but I'm kinda thinking the one-world government is gonna happen ..

one-world government is a near impossibility due to span of control limitations. you would need to create such an enormous bureaucracy that can only be sustained by an enormous layer of exploitable subjects in order to obtain the resources needed to offset huge inefficiencies of such a structure

*talking to himself, scrambling through notes, picking up, smelling and then eating a three-day old sandwich of the floor*

[Claverhouse]

yes, but they were still technically occupiers.

Occupiers of what ? We are all ( temporary ) occupiers. In this case the Arabic muslims were the invaders.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[charred_heart]

Occupiers of what ? We are all ( temporary ) occupiers. In this case the Arabic muslims were the invaders.


Claverhouse :ph34r:they were invaders, but they changed the status of the old empire's provinces back to countries. They helped bring back the heritage and identity of these conquered lands.

[Vagabond]

they were invaders, but they changed the status of the old empire's provinces back to countries. They helped bring back the heritage and identity of these conquered lands.
Um, yes, by oppressing them enough so that they clinged to their national identities. I don't owe them any favours for occupying, killing, converting by force and oppressing my people in any possible way .

The Byzantines were not Romans. The Byzantium was the outcome of the Roman Empire changing hands. They didn't even get along with the western part of the empire (the Roman one).

[charred_heart]

Um, yes, by oppressing them enough so that they clinged to their national identities. I don't owe them any favours for occupying, killing, converting by force and oppressing my people in any possible way .

The Byzantines were not Romans. The Byzantium was the outcome of the Roman Empire changing hands. They didn't even get along with the western part of the empire (the Roman one).If you're talking about Constantinople and the other areas of what is now Turkey, that's a different time. The Turks oppressed killed and did a lot of other things to my people too.

[Vagabond]

They were; or at least as Romanoi, then Greek for Romans, but this meant no more than describing them as christians --- or the fact that every culture describes non-members of their own culture as barbarians ( although the word should only apply to a specific set of ways and values during a stage in the race's growth: eg: not savages etc. )



Yes; but Rome itself went down in the 5th century after a long illness. The Eastern half continued and expanded under new management, but had little to do with the Rome of Cato or Marcus Aurelius, except the names.

That Rome fell to the Visigoths in the west; and the Sassinids in the East.


Claverhouse :ph34r:
One point only; the greek word for Romans is Ρωμαίοι (RomEoi), the word they called themselves was Ρωμιοί (RomiOI). "Romios" is a synonymous to Greek even nowadays; "Romeos" has always meant Roman. It was meant, like you said, to demonstrate the continuum of a christian empire, yet to point out they were not the same people.

I agree to all the rest.

[Vagabond]

If you're talking about Constantinople and the other areas of what is now Turkey, that's a different time. The Turks oppressed killed and did a lot of other things to my people too.
Oops sorry. I thought you were talking about the time the Byzantine Empire fell - don't mind me, carry on... :whistle:

[Dr. Haight]

This is reminding me of my Roman History class.

Let my try... Romulus, Cesar's, Justinian, Suleiman?

[Melody]

goemon was the best

[charred_heart]

Oops sorry. I thought you were talking about the time the Byzantine Empire fell - don't mind me, carry on... :whistle:oh yeah. I meant that the early conquests weakend the empire to the point where it would have ended on it's own anyway, and would have gone back to being just Greece. The Turks, that was something else - they were strong and they were brutal.

[zhang_bob]

The Republican Party causing an economic depression.

[Ferrus]

they were invaders, but they changed the status of the old empire's provinces back to countries. They helped bring back the heritage and identity of these conquered lands.
Really? As I see it they turned the whole of the area, albeit slowly, into a land that is largely Arabic speaking and Muslim. The modern countries are no more than inventions of the West. Besides which the great Persian-Zoroastrian culture was all but obliterated by the cultural juggernaut that was the Islamic Empire which rather suggests that the Islamic Empire was not altogether different from its predecessors.

[Claverhouse]

Really? As I see it they turned the whole of the area, albeit slowly, into a land that is largely Arabic speaking and Muslim. The modern countries are no more than inventions of the West. Besides which the great Persian-Zoroastrian culture was all but obliterated by the cultural juggernaut that was the Islamic Empire which rather suggests that the Islamic Empire was not altogether different from its predecessors.

Precisely. Islam and it's cultural mores was completely alien to those peoples they converted with the sword.



One point only; the greek word for Romans is Ρωμαίοι (RomEoi), the word they called themselves was Ρωμιοί (RomiOI). "Romios" is a synonymous to Greek even nowadays; "Romeos" has always meant Roman. It was meant, like you said, to demonstrate the continuum of a christian empire, yet to point out they were not the same people.

Wish I had been taught Greek... Ancient or modern. :)


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Ferrus]

Precisely. Islam and it's cultural mores was completely alien to those peoples they converted with the sword.
Coverted by the sword is somewhat harsh way to describe the conquests of the early era of Islam, for there were still significant communities of Christian and Jewish Dhimmis (a notion the Turks converted into the Millet system) who were treated far better than Jews or Cathars were in Christian Europe. Although they were nonetheless second class citizens with fiscal burdens and had the responsibility to wear unifroms to distinguish them.

However, the Islamic Empire created a political structure wherein it became expedient to accept Islam. Very similar to the way in which the Late Roman Empire became prodominantly Christian.

The great religions have only ever become "great" after they have achieved state backing. Notice Buddhism's spread across Asia. Islam is such a puissant force in the world because of the fortuitous timing of its birth: that is at exactly the moment when the Byzantines and Persians had enervated each other's power to such an extent that they were both vulnerable to an attack by a third group.

[Hustler]

What will cause the collapse of the United States empire?

Jews.

[charred_heart]

Coverted by the sword is somewhat harsh way to describe the conquests of the early era of Islam, for there were still significant communities of Christian and Jewish Dhimmis (a notion the Turks converted into the Millet system) who were treated far better than Jews or Cathars were in Christian Europe. Although they were nonetheless second class citizens with fiscal burdens and had the responsibility to wear unifroms to distinguish them.

However, the Islamic Empire created a political structure wherein it became expedient to accept Islam. Very similar to the way in which the Late Roman Empire became prodominantly Christian.Have you thought of the possibility that it was popular at the time? Muslims were starting to get a reputation for their scientific and architectural achievements, they were doing business basically with the whole world - from Europe to China.
We have a similiar case in the modern world where the American culture is spreading not by it's military might but because of it's allure.

[charred_heart]

Jews.Muslims, Jews....
Somebody mention Lebanon so this thread becomes a classic.

[Ferrus]

Have you thought of the possibility that it was popular at the time?
It was popular because it was linked to power and wealth. Accepting Islam was a personal expedient in the same way that accepting American Liberal Democratic values (that are not really believed in with whole heartedly) is now. The fact that the only people who are now Muslim come from the area under which the Islamic Empire (or its Islamic sucessors) is suggestive of the fact that Islam was the route by which one gained a higher social position. If it was really able to attract converts by the sheer force of its popularity, why was there not a mass conversion in Europe?

[Dr. Haight]

Jews.
So, are the Jews running the empire, or will they be the invaders?

*visions of hasidic Jews invading by yachts, through Miami, with Talmud's in one hand, and Torah pointers in the other*

... just wondering :peep:

[CreativeChaos]

BIG BUISINESS!!!!


Really, you just can't compare the U.S. with the Romans. We only started this stupid pre-emptive strike and trying to "democratize" the world under Bush. Vote those "crusaders" out!

We are NOT about taking over the world. The Romans were. They over extended themselves, and if we don't quit our present course, so will we. But we were never an empire in the true sense. We don't colonize, like the Romans and the British.

We need to find an alternative energy source. And I think that as gasoline prices get higher, we will.

I also think that BIG corporations will do a lot of people in. (they are already) They are not governed in other countries, as they are here, and as a result more "outsourcing" is occuring. We cannot continue to live in a Global Economy and have our massive consumerism, too.

The giant multinational corporations who use other people around the world at slave labour, will lower the boom on use all. They are based on greed and the richer will get richer and the poor will get poorer. They have profits the size of the GNP of small countries. So they have the power of small countries.

We, the people, of the USA cannot control these corporate giants. The only thing we can do, is NOT buy their products. But, I fear this will not happen and we are frankly ALL doomed by these corporate giants who will take over the world, not just bring the US down.

[Claverhouse]

We are NOT about taking over the world. The Romans were. They over extended themselves, and if we don't quit our present course, so will we. But we were never an empire in the true sense. We don't colonize, like the Romans and the British.

You are right that empires, and powers, die through over-extension --- as will happen to the USA when you have too many war-fronts and have to get others to fight your battles ( mercenaries ) --- but colonies are not part of a definition of a true empire. Colonies are about settling your surplus population ( and thereby securing trade-routes ) in other places: eventually they become independent. An empire has to be a cohesive bloc, preferably ruling over various nations, which is defensible as a whole.

The Romans didn't colonise so much as transfer a group of citizens to run captured populations as an elite; whereas the British took over vast tracts of very underpopulated countries and started breeding like mad to provide a population.

And you are taking over the world, it's just through cultural values from the spreading of compliant democracy as interpreted by the American pattern, to the idea of New York as the desired centre of the universe; and trade agreements which benefit America rather than the other partner and enforce the acceptance of American values.

Which values are utter crap.

However this will fail due to both over-extension etc. etc. and the fact that those values themselves were not only fatally flawed from the start, but have decayed into simple-minded weaknesses which deliberately seek to destroy your own traditional heritage, and embrace those who will take your country from you.

If China does eventually invade, the institutions of your country will applaud the enemies' action as restitution for all the bad things the WASPs have ever done; whilst the general population will sit back and watch it on TV. If they don't flip channels.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Nighthawk]

Outsourcing.

[Heather Harrison]

I've thought about this a bit, and I see a few possibilities. Others here have touched on some of them.

1. Collapse from within via civil war. It is possible that the polarization in our culture could get worse, especially when a serious problem (probably economic in nature) suddenly arises and catches people off guard. Then, the deep divisions that exist today could become a lot deeper, and things could get ugly.

2. Irreversible economic collapse due to idiotic fiscal policy and out-of-control military spending. We could simply descend to third world status, and people will be trying to move from the U.S. into Mexico. This situation could also feed into #1.

3. Invasion. This doesn't seem likely now, but as other powers around the world grow, and as we rot away, it could happen. The Chinese might invade if they perceive that it is in their interest. Right now, it would cost them too much (and they depend on our consumers to buy their junk anyway), but if that situation changes and we end up competing with them for dwindling oil, they might want to bring the war home to us. Less likely would be a large invasion by a coalition of Islamic countries; they have a long way to go before they reach the necessary level of military capability. Of course, if we continue to piss them off, and if they get access to advanced military technology, it could happen.

4. Nuclear war. This is an ever-present threat, and if certain nasty countries continue to develop nuclear weapons, they might send a few our way. Maybe our species would become extinct as a result, and the rats and cockroaches would take our place.

5. Gradual, peaceful decline. Unfortunately, empires seldom die in a slow and stable fashion, but I suppose it is possible. The U.S. could cease to be such a strong power, but might retain enough power to hold together. Other powers will dominate various regions of the world, and in order to survive, the U.S. will have to scale back on overconsumption and properly utilize domestic resources. Isolationism would become the dominant political philosophy; we would simply disengage from the Middle East and other hotspots and mind our own business. This is the possibility that I would prefer, but somehow I doubt it will end so well.

6. Collapse due to environmental degradation, potentially feeding into some of the other possibilities. Industrial agriculture depends on very stable climate conditions, and if the climate changes too much, there could be massive and sudden crop failures. There's nothing like a famine to quickly destabilize a society.

Heather

[Hustler]

So, are the Jews running the empire, or will they be the invaders?

Don't pretend like you don't already know exactly how it's all going to go down. I don't know how or when it's going to happen, but I'm certain the Jews will be responsible.

[Monica]

Commercialism

[Architectonic]

decentralization/liberalization.

[charred_heart]

It was popular because it was linked to power and wealth. Accepting Islam was a personal expedient in the same way that accepting American Liberal Democratic values (that are not really believed in with whole heartedly) is now. The fact that the only people who are now Muslim come from the area under which the Islamic Empire (or its Islamic sucessors) is suggestive of the fact that Islam was the route by which one gained a higher social position. If it was really able to attract converts by the sheer force of its popularity, why was there not a mass conversion in Europe?There was not much contact between Europe and the Islamic world during that time. Venice did business with the muslims, but if I remember correctly it was just to pass through the middle east to head to Asia. Islam spread mostly through trade. My country which was then called Nubia was not part of the muslim empire yet a mass conversion to Islam occured during the 900's.

[raincrow007]

Time.

*waits patiently*

[Heleuiski]

Don't pretend like you don't already know exactly how it's all going to go down. I don't know how or when it's going to happen, but I'm certain the Jews will be responsible.

:wtf:

I feel like I'm in a room with a lot of facist racist bigots...
Oh I am!

..............................................................................................................

The decline of the American empire... well there are various scenarios. All I hope with all my heart is whatever's next will be an improvement, not a step back in terms of democratic civilization.

[ApeTheDog]

Like with all large empires, their belief in victory will be their downfall. The belief in superhero-ethics, the black/white ideological conviction that defeating your enemy is possible; that there are bad guys, and that good guys can conquer them. They're going down that path already and that will be their downfall.

[dubbeltop]

Obesity

[Heleuiski]

Obesity

:popcorn:

[C.Monkey]

What a pile of shit. *looks around Ymir's head to see traces of the lobotomy surgery*

:rofl:

[immortalmack]

(Yes I'm a newbie)

Is it possible that The US will simply be kindly forced to get off the throne kina like the British. They did'nt go down in a ball of flames they just were kindly replaced as leaders of the free world ( I think after the bretton Woods convention).Everyone seems to be talking about the destruction of the US. i think that actual is a whole lota globalization of frustration of the present times.

[Dr. Haight]

Nice first post.

And... Welcome.

[immortalmack]

Thank you very much.

[Heleuiski]

Muslims, Jews....
Somebody mention Lebanon so this thread becomes a classic.

:rofl:

[Heleuiski]

A French Muslim Feminist lesbian with a Jewish father will be the downfall of America.

:whyi:

Or Mexicans, all of them. Never trust a Mexican.

[mgb]

The US will be brought down by it's current driving engine. Shareholders. With no regard for anything but the bottom line the economy will eventually destroy itself through various means of instability. Could be pollution. Could be the dollar. Could be wood or water or food. The how isn't as important as the why. Because the US is a glutton. And sharholders are the faceless driver of all that selfishness.

China doesn't matter. India either. I mean, they are shareholders too, so what do they care? But they don't have to do anything. America has set up a system through it's government to destroy itself. It's undoable and even if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter because it's past the point of no return.

[LongSilence]

A critical time will be when the stock market takes its next critically deep dive.

[sbw]

carnies.

small hands, smell like cabbage.

Scott

[Jacque]

The succession of American Somoa, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guantanamo, and all other undeclared possessions (Iraq, Panama, and Canada).

http://www.pbs.org/crucible/cartoons/cartoon-5.gif

[Ferrus]

American Somoa, Guam
You do realise some places are so small in both land mass and population that self-government really isn't an option - and neither do they wish for it either as most small islands in the Pacific and the Carribean belonging to the US/UK/France get provided with significant subsidies. Not to mention an easy escape route if the Island starts to sink or a Volcano erupts.

[charred_heart]

and Puerto Ricans are hot. Who doesn't want them to be part of their country? :p

[INThoughtPolice]

Selfishness, in some form.

[Stillwater]

greed
gluttony
envy
sloth
pride
lust
wrath

[booyalab]

Undermining their political legitimacy all over the world by attempting to dominate through sheer military might.

that's ridiculous. The only way an empire can be destroyed is if their military might is challenged, from a country with greater military might. It has nothing to do with mere "political legitimacy".

[Jacque]

You do realise some places are so small in both land mass and population that self-government really isn't an option.

That's exactly the type of sentiment that breeds empires, masters and slaves.

[25fd]

DEBT

[Melody]

korrect me if im wrong, but if the US' economy goes to crap, wont we bring the rest of the world w/ us? and so then the #1 country may be significantly determined by who recovers the best after such a depression

[thelastsortasane1]

Economy hollowed out by outsourcing and globalization, no industries left other than home equity loans and $4 cups of coffee, peak oil, debt, and to top it off by this fall we may no longer be able to export grain due to the drought and the hoax that is ethanol.

[charred_heart]

korrect me if im wrong, but if the US' economy goes to crap, wont we bring the rest of the world w/ us? and so then the #1 country may be significantly determined by who recovers the best after such a depressiongood point. Didn't the U.S become a super power in the first place because it was not affected by WWII as much as the rest of the world?

[omnirook]

I've never understood how people can take a look at history and not see what is plain: all social orders - whether countries or empires or even just prehistoric villages - eventually come to an end - the causes are not really that important, especially when one is considering the demise of empires. In the case of an empire, it's never just one thing that leads to its fall. It's always a combination of things. Internal rot, an overextended military, an exhausted culture, the economy, disease (those who posted about the demise of Rome and Byzantium left out the plagues that ravaged both states), invasions - no matter, in the end - the result is the same: too bad, so sad, so long, bye bye. There's no getting out of it, not even for America.

[Claverhouse]

There is anyway the natural life-cycle of any created thing... You might appreciate Spengler.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[omnirook]

There is anyway the natural life-cycle of any created thing... You might appreciate Spengler.


Claverhouse :ph34r:
Oswald Spengler. I've read of him, but I have not read him. He was something of a jack-of-all-academic-trades, was he not? Was his book called, "The Decline of the West?" Is it available in English? My German is not good enough to read w/any ease - I have a German brother-in-law, so I've learned some conversational German, but ...

From what I've read about him, his theory of decline in any civilization has been very controversial - of course, it threatens the false sense of security that is so essential to the capitalist system. We can't have people wondering if it makes sense to go on paying their debt when the collapse might come soon.

[omnirook]

If one must discuss the collapse of the American Empire, well, then, one must. Fine. Many things will have contributed to America's decline and fall, many things, not the least of which will be the unbounded greed, cruelty, and cynicism of America's ruling elites. An empire cannot possibly last if its rulers are busy selling it out from under itself to increase their own profits. The whole of the corporate "culture" that has prevailed w/little interruption - the Great Society years! - is no help in fostering the intense loyalty that is needed to keep any social order in tact and functioning. The fact that you are on your own and that no one gives a damn what happens to you will not make for loyal citizens who will do their best for the homeland. No healthcare, no job security - not even jobs any more - and a patently corrupt Administration - the Bush sleaze factor has not been exceeded in America's history - will take their toll.

But one factor that I have always recognized that I have yet to see anyone else point to is what I call the "bullshit factor": from its inception, America's national myth has been so full of shit that not even "dumbing down" the people to the present beyond embarrassing level will keep those lumps in the throats as the National Anthem is played. The "truth, justice, and the American way" crap has been peddled to an obscenely ludicrous point. The effect has been 2 sided: on the one hand, the country always had to find ways to justify its land and money grabs by making them seem like a form of philanthropy; on the other hand, the nation's "good will" has rung so hollow that even the most out of it rubes are beginning to catch on. The old slogans are just not working any more.

Now the country is in very bad shape, very bad. Can't even do a draft to fill its ranks - the draft would back fire. Anti-war activism would rise beyond the Vietnam pitch the moment the draft notices were dropped in the mail. Good. This is just what the rich deserve. I'm a thief and a cut throat, and I will survive. It would give me unbounded joy to watch the scum that live on Park Avenue being dragged out and strung up by rioting mobs. The United States is a pig sty, ruled over by overstuffed slobs who need to be taken for a ride in a tumbril to the Place de Greve. I have no sympathy at all for the rich, white - and I am white! - garbage that has led this nation to where it is. We had everything. I mean everything. Plenty of land, plenty of resources, energetic peasants from all over the world, willing to give their all to make the place prosperous, but, no, the shit at the top had to get greedy. Fuck em.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Undermining their political legitimacy all over the world by attempting to dominate through sheer military might.


I was thinking the exact opposite.

I think the US half asses their military operations. I am not saying it is correct - but if we are going to take over a place - why not do it completely instead of pretending that we are a stabilizing force?

Anyway - I am not saying US policy is correct - but I am saying that if we are going to be a bully - be the best bully out there or we're wasting time and resources. If we run out of resources - China could lead - because they have a more efficient use of their resources. And they still love their scientist. The US loves their sports heros.

[charred_heart]

I was thinking the exact opposite.

I think the US half asses their military operations. I am not saying it is correct - but if we are going to take over a place - why not do it completely instead of pretending that we are a stabilizing force? Hitler tried that. All things in moderation pal.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Hitler tried that. All things in moderation pal.


So did the roman empire... and until they fell - peace ruled.

I do not think that any empire can last for-ever... having said that - what is the lesser of two evils? Let people constantly kill eachother - or crack a few shells and force peace down they throats.

Ofcourse I am just being academic.

[charred_heart]

So did the roman empire... and until they fell - peace ruled.

I do not think that any empire can last for-ever... having said that - what is the lesser of two evils? Let people constantly kill eachother - or crack a few shells and force peace down they throats.

Ofcourse I am just being academic.who's going to pay for all this? The U.S would have to abandon it's principles and become a fully fledged empire to do that. An empire in this day and age...

[Nighthawk]

Now the country is in very bad shape, very bad. Can't even do a draft to fill its ranks - the draft would back fire. Anti-war activism would rise beyond the Vietnam pitch the moment the draft notices were dropped in the mail. Good. This is just what the rich deserve. I'm a thief and a cut throat, and I will survive. It would give me unbounded joy to watch the scum that live on Park Avenue being dragged out and strung up by rioting mobs. The United States is a pig sty, ruled over by overstuffed slobs who need to be taken for a ride in a tumbril to the Place de Greve. I have no sympathy at all for the rich, white - and I am white! - garbage that has led this nation to where it is. We had everything. I mean everything. Plenty of land, plenty of resources, energetic peasants from all over the world, willing to give their all to make the place prosperous, but, no, the shit at the top had to get greedy. Fuck em.

Pretty much sums up the way I feel about it too. ... and if you want the real reasons behind the Iraq war, then follow the money.

[jread]

The U.S. is already on its way down in my opinion. The current administration has been quite helpful in speeding up the process.

There are LOTS of good, hard-working people in America and it's a shame that they don't have much of a say in what happens. The rich, the celebrities, the elite... they run the country. They are the ones you see on TV... they are the ones the rest of the world thinks of when they think of Americans (no wonder they hate us).

Capitalism and greed have brought the U.S. to the top of the world and will now drag it back down.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Pretty much sums up the way I feel about it too. ... and if you want the real reasons behind the Iraq war, then follow the money.


Word.

[Heleuiski]

Pretty much sums up the way I feel about it too. ... and if you want the real reasons behind the Iraq war, then follow the money.

I second that.

[sbw]

if you want the real reasons behind the Iraq war, then follow the money.

"...for one reason or another, the 1970s were the only decade of heavy pumping and large oil revenues. Production had been kept low during the glutted thirties, and it then stagnated during WWII. By 1948 Iraq's commercial production was just one-seventh that of Iran and one-sixth that of Saudi Arabia. Then between 1980 and 1988, the drawn-out Iran-Iraq War curbed output in both countries. Next came the Gulf War in 1991, followed by the effects of United Nations sanctions from 1990 until the subsequent invasion of Iraq in 2003. Over the last decade or so this chronology of Iraq's surprisingly limited oil production has become relevant again for a simple reason: given that relatively little of Iraq's oil has been pumped, most of it is still in the ground."

--Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy, pg. 76 (emphasis included in original text)

Scott

[Dr. Haight]

The U.S. Empire Makes Its Move To Take Over The Middle East

By John Pilger

The National Museum of American History is part of the celebrated Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. Surrounded by mock Graeco-Roman edifices with their soaring Corinthian columns, rampant eagles and chiselled profundities, it is at the centre of Empire, though the word itself is engraved nowhere. This is understandable, as the likes of Hitler and Mussolini were proud imperialists, too: on a "great mission to rid the world of evil", to borrow from President Bush.

One of the museum's exhibitions is called "The Price of Freedom: Americans at war". In the spirit of Santa's Magic Grotto, this travesty of revisionism helps us understand how silence and omission are so successfully deployed in free, media-saturated societies. The shuffling lines of ordinary people, many of them children, are dispensed the vainglorious message that America has always "built freedom and democracy" - notably at Hiroshima and Nagasaki where the atomic bombing saved "a million lives", and in Vietnam where America's crusaders were "determined to stop communist expansion", and in Iraq where the same true hearts "employed air strikes of unprecedented precision".

The words "invasion" and "controversial" make only fleeting appearances; there is no hint that the "great mission" has overseen, since 1945, the attempted overthrow of 50 governments, many of them democracies, along with the crushing of popular movements struggling against tyranny and the bombing of 30 countries, causing the loss of countless lives. In central America, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan's arming and training of gangster-armies saw off 300,000 people; in Guatemala, this was described by the UN as genocide. No word of this is uttered in the Grotto. Indeed, thanks to such displays, Americans can venerate war, comforted by the crimes of others and knowing nothing about their own.

In Santa's Grotto, there is no place for Howard Zinn's honest People's History of the United States, or I F Stone's revelation of the truth of what the museum calls "the forgotten war" in Korea, or Mark Twain's definition of patriotism as the need to keep "multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries". Moreover, at the Price of Freedom Shop, you can buy US Army Monopoly, and a "grateful nation blanket" for just $200. The exhibition's corporate sponsors include Sears, Roebuck, the mammoth retailer. The point is taken.

To understand the power of indoctrination in free societies is also to understand the subversive power of the truth it suppresses. During the Blair era in Britain, precocious revisionists of Empire have been embraced by the pro-war media. Inspired by America's Messianic claims of "victory" in the cold war, their pseudo-histories have sought not only to hose down the blood slick of slavery, plunder, famine and genocide that was British imperialism ("the Empire was an exemplary force for good": Andrew Roberts) but also to rehabilitate Gladstonian convictions of superiority and promote "the imposition of western values", as Niall Ferguson puts it.

Ferguson relishes "values", an unctuous concept that covers both the barbarism of the imperial past and today's ruthless, rigged "free" market. The new code for race and class is "culture". Thus, the enduring, piratical campaign by the rich and powerful against the poor and weak, especially those with natural resources, has become a "clash of civilisations". Since Francis Fukuyama wrote his drivel about "the end of history" (since recanted), the task of the revisionists and mainstream journalism has been to popularise the "new" imperialism, as in Ferguson's War of the World series for Channel 4 and his frequent soundbites on the BBC. In this way, the public is "softened up" for the rapacious invasion of countries on false pretences, including a not unlikely nuclear attack on Iran, and the ascent in Washington of an executive dictatorship, as called for by Vice-President Cheney. So imminent is the latter that a supine Congress will almost certainly reverse the Supreme Court's recent decision to outlaw the Guantanamo kangaroo courts. The judge who wrote the majority opinion - in a high court Bush himself stacked - sounded his alarm through this seminal quotation of James Madison: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

The catastrophe in the Middle East is a product of such an imperial tyranny. It is clear that the long-planned assault on Gaza and now the destruction of Lebanon are Washington-ordained and pretexts for a wider campaign with the goal of installing American puppets in Lebanon, Syria and eventually Iran. "The pay-off time has come," wrote the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe; "now the proxy should salvage the entangled Empire."

The attendant propaganda - the abuse of language and eternal hypocrisy - has reached its nadir in recent weeks. An Israeli soldier belonging to an invasion force was captured and held, legitimately, as a prisoner of war. Reported as a "kidnapping", this set off yet more slaughter of Palestinian civilians. The seizure of two Palestinian civilians two days before the capture of the soldier was of no interest. Neither was the incarceration of thousands of Palestinian hostages in Israeli prisons, and the torture of many of them, as documented by Amnesty. The kidnapped soldier story cancelled any serious inquiry into Israel's plans to reinvade Gaza, from which it had staged a phoney withdrawal. The fact and meaning of Hamas's self-imposed 16-month ceasefire were lost in inanities about "recognising Israel", along with Israel's state of terror in Gaza - the dropping of a 500lb bomb on a residential block, the firing of as many as 9,000 heavy artillery shells into one of the most densely populated places on earth and the nightly terrorising with sonic booms.

"I want nobody to sleep at night in Gaza," declared the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, as children went out of their minds. In their defence, the Palestinians fired a cluster of Qassam missiles and killed eight Israelis: enough to ensure Israel's victimhood on the BBC; even Jeremy Bowen struck a shameful "balance", referring to "two narratives". The historical equivalent is not far from that of the Nazi bombardment and starvation of the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto. Try to imagine that described as "two narratives".

Watching this unfold in Washington - I am staying in a hotel taken over by evangelical "Christians for Israel" apparently seeking rapture - I have heard only the crudest colonial refrain and no truth. Hezbollah, drone America's journalistic caricatures, is "armed and funded by Syria and Iran", and so they beckon an attack on those countries, while remaining silent about America's $3bn-a-day gift of planes and small arms and bombs to a state whose international lawlessness is a registered world record.

There is never mention that, just as the rise of Hamas was a response to the atrocities and humiliations the Palestinians have suffered for half a century, so Hezbollah was formed only as a defence against Ariel Sharon's murderous invasion of Lebanon in 1982 which left 22,000 people dead.

There is never mention that Israel intervenes at will, illegally and brutally, in the remaining 22 per cent of historic Palestine, having demolished 11,000 homes and walled off people from their farmlands, and families, and hospitals, and schools. There is never mention that the threat to Israel's existence is a canard, and the true enemy of its people is not the Arabs, but Zionism and an imperial America that guarantees the Jewish state as the antithesis of humane Judaism. The epic injustice done to the Palestinians is the heart of the matter. While European governments (with the honourable exception of the Swiss) have remained craven, it is only Hezbollah that has come to the Palestinians' aid. How truly shaming. There is no media "narrative" of the Palestinians' heroic stand during two uprisings, and with slingshots and stones most of the time. Israel's murders of Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall have left them utterly alone. Neither is the silence of governments all that is shocking. On a major BBC programme, Maureen Lipman, a Jew and promoter of selective good causes, is allowed to say, without serious challenge, that "human life is not cheap to the Israelis, and human life on the other side is quite cheap actually . . ."

Let Lipman see the children of Gaza laid out after an Israeli bombing run, their parents petrified with grief. Let her watch as a young Palestinian woman - and there have been many of them - screams in pain as she gives birth in the back seat of a car at night at an Israeli roadblock, having been wilfully refused right of passage to a hospital. Then let Lipman watch the child's father carry his newborn across freezing fields until it turns blue and dies.

I think Orwell got it right in this passage from Nineteen Eighty-Four, a tale of the ultimate empire:

"And in the general hardening of outlook that set in . . . practices which had been long abandoned - imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions . . . and the deportation of whole populations - not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."

John Pilger's new book, "Freedom Next Time", is published by Bantam Press

[htb]

Pilger is an oddly spiteful solipsist, but I suppose he can't be considered as far gone as Fisk until he blames himself for being beaten up.

To answer the original question: even if it were an empire, nothing.

[imfrellinggay]

China + religious fanatics + a corporate bordello (or Congress) = Destruction of the USA by 2020

[Claverhouse]

Oswald Spengler. I've read of him, but I have not read him. He was something of a jack-of-all-academic-trades, was he not? Was his book called, "The Decline of the West?" Is it available in English? My German is not good enough to read w/any ease - I have a German brother-in-law, so I've learned some conversational German, but ...

From what I've read about him, his theory of decline in any civilization has been very controversial - of course, it threatens the false sense of security that is so essential to the capitalist system. We can't have people wondering if it makes sense to go on paying their debt when the collapse might come soon.

Ah, found my original thread, which gives some introduction to the man and his theories...

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=121

:D


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Ferrus]

"In the end God cares not whether we were successful, or even agreeable: the only thing that truly matters is being right" - of course the only think the physical universe cares about is the continued existence of the powerful, ergo the most stable. What God thinks is immaterial for our live, and is only a matter of import after death, presuming that such a deity has an existence.

In other words, the USA has no set life span, and neither does Western Civilisation. Both are proped up by power: economic, military and technlogical, and the collapse of power or the increase of other civilisations' power in real terms will betoken the collapse of the said civilisation. None of this is "right", it just is - the sooner one expurgates morality from the analytical methodlogy and places it as an product of human society the better so far as a clear analysis is concerned.

[Claverhouse]

"In the end God cares not whether we were successful, or even agreeable: the only thing that truly matters is being right" - of course the only think the physical universe cares about is the continued existence of the powerful, ergo the most stable. What God thinks is immaterial for our live, and is only a matter of import after death, presuming that such a deity has an existence.

In other words, the USA has no set life span, and neither does Western Civilisation. Both are proped up by power: economic, military and technlogical, and the collapse of power or the increase of other civilisations' power in real terms will betoken the collapse of the said civilisation. None of this is "right", it just is - the sooner one expurgates morality from the analytical methodlogy and places it as an product of human society the better so far as a clear analysis is concerned.


Where does morality come into what either Spengler or I said ? As for set life spans, his point was that there are definite stages to the life-cycle of any culture, and that ours has reached it's sell-by-date.

Power can't stop you from dying.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Ferrus]

Power can't stop you from dying.

Only because death is the loss of power. When we die a natural death we are merely succuming to the power of the natural world around us, against our will, mayhap science will provide the means by which to combat this in the future. In any case, to kill someone or to destroy something is the ultimate consumation of your power over theirs.

What I take objection to is the notion that there must be some rivetted course and life spans for cultures. As far as I can see cultures are just arbitary habits of a community that wax and wane not because of what they are but with the power of those that belong to that culture. Western civilisation will inevitably die because the power of some other culture will inevitably come to rival it geopolitically, not because of what it is.

[Claverhouse]

Um, death involves more than the loss of power, or powers. It means physical extinction to nothingness. In the case of a nation it can involve physical obliteration or scattering or slavery.


When we die a natural death we are merely succuming to the power of the natural world around us, against our will

No, you succumb to the pre-ordained lack of vitality within you, nothing to do with the external natural world except when your death involves external means such as a dagger or a virus. Every cell contains the seed of it's own destruction.


In any case, to kill someone or to destroy something is the ultimate consumation of your power over theirs.

How ? You don't necessarily win by killing an enemy: you might live a wretched life after because of that act.


What I take objection to is the notion that there must be some rivetted course and life spans for cultures.

It's not a fixed blue-print: merely the natural course of a being's life, which varies according to circumstances.


As far as I can see cultures are just arbitary habits of a community that wax and wane not because of what they are but with the power of those that belong to that culture. Western civilisation will inevitably die because the power of some other culture will inevitably come to rival it geopolitically, not because of what it is.

It will die of it's own senility. Like us all if we live that long.


As for that which you quoted of me


"In the end God cares not whether we were successful, or even agreeable: the only thing that truly matters is being right"

That wasn't a reference to morality, merely to that fact that the foregone lack of success in struggle against inevitability ( the death of one's culture ) in no way absolves us from still fighting for what we believe to be just.

As an Englishman you must recall Clough's words which we sung in Infant's School as six year olds, Say not the struggle naught availeth:

SAY not the struggle naught availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.

If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke conceal'd,
Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Ferrus]

Um, death involves more than the loss of power, or powers. It means physical extinction to nothingness. In the case of a nation it can involve physical obliteration or scattering or slavery.But in the physical universe that physical extinction is not nothingness but the replacement of one existence with another, that is the essence of what we call energy on the level of the atom or star, power on the level of the individual or state and popularity on the level of information, or "memes".


No, you succumb to the pre-ordained lack of vitality within you, nothing to do with the external natural world except when your death involves external means such as a dagger or a virus. Every cell contains the seed of it's own destruction.
That it does, but not before replicating itself, as do animals. In any case a culture has pre-ordained lack of vitality it just is: any lack of vitality is the fault of the political, economic or social circumstances in which the culture finds itself.


How ? You don't necessarily win by killing an enemy: you might live a wretched life after because of that act.
True, however we are talking about human societies here: the talk of power here is very different to the level of say the star or atom, and equally so that of cultures and nations, because humans have more mutual interests.


It's not a fixed blue-print: merely the natural course of a being's life, which varies according to circumstances.But surely this vitality is not the result of the vitality of the culture per see, but a result of the political power of the social entities to which the culture is attached.


in no way absolves us from still fighting for what we believe to be just.As for as I can assertain nothing is just: all one can "fight" for is simply the greatest pleasure for one's self whether that be by altuistic or selfish means (prudence is simply choosing the most efficacious methodology). To fight for anything else is to fight for the fallacy of "truth" and Platonism.

[Claverhouse]

But in the physical universe that physical extinction is not nothingness but the replacement of one existence with another, that is the essence of what we call energy on the level of the atom or star, power on the level of the individual or state and popularity on the level of information, or "memes".

But you are nothing when extinct: every thought, wish, action and belief is gone forever. And what replaces you won't interest you at all because you won't be around to know of it.



That it does, but not before replicating itself, as do animals. In any case a culture has pre-ordained lack of vitality it just is: any lack of vitality is the fault of the political, economic or social circumstances in which the culture finds itself.

Like everything else, the culture runs out: according to your thesis, things would live forever if those darned accidents didn't happen to them


But surely this vitality is not the result of the vitality of the culture per see, but a result of the political power of the social entities to which the culture is attached.


The loss of political power may be caused by the culture's own degeneracy. I do not admire the American revolutionists, but they had little political power ( and even when they had won, comparatively little to the rest of the world ) but great vitality; now that America is sick and old, it has nearly a temporary monopoly of political power, but it could not do the things it's ancestors did. It can't even sort out the aftermath of small wars it started in it's senile fear.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Ferrus]

Like everything else, the culture runs out: according to your thesis, things would live forever if those darned accidents didn't happen to themThis may be the case with biological creations, but what of man made creations? They last for as long as they are not destroyed, hence the Pyramids of Eygpt still remain clear for us to see.


The loss of political power may be caused by the culture's own degeneracy. I do not admire the American revolutionists, but they had little political power ( and even when they had won, comparatively little to the rest of the world ) but great vitality; now that America is sick and old, it has nearly a temporary monopoly of political power, but it could not do the things it's ancestors did. It can't even sort out the aftermath of small wars it started in it's senile fear.
But you seem to suggest this is some univeral law and not a situation that can be rectified by historical forces.

Germany in the 1920's could be seen as having lost its vitality, but with the political exegencies of age it had perhaps become the most virile culture of the world by the 1930's - not because of some "life span" but simply because of the personages in charge.

[Jacque]

On a major BBC programme, Maureen Lipman, a Jew and promoter of selective good causes, is allowed to say, without serious challenge, that "human life is not cheap to the Israelis, and human life on the other side is quite cheap actually . . ."

John Pilger's new book, "Freedom Next Time", is published by Bantam Press

Reminds me of what was said during the Vietnam War:

''The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient." -- General William Westmoreland, Army Chief of Staff

[Dr. Haight]

Reminds me of what was said during the Vietnam War:

''The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient." -- General William Westmoreland, Army Chief of Staff
It happens in every war, and within every conflict: One side convincing their citizens that they are on the side of good, and the other is on the side of evil. The marginalizing of the other is stage one of a pre-war propaganda program. All nations do this to one degree or another, yet some programs are just more sophisticated - and thereby more successful - than others.

[Ferrus]

It happens in every war, and within every conflict: One side convincing their citizens that they are on the side of good, and the other is on the side of evil. The marginalizing of the other is stage one of a pre-war propaganda program. All nations do this to one degree or another, yet some programs are just more sophisticated - and thereby more successful - than others.
It is not just nations that do it either - it is an essential aspect of much of our thinking. Or at least so said the existentialists.

[Claverhouse]

This may be the case with biological creations, but what of man made creations? They last for as long as they are not destroyed, hence the Pyramids of Eygpt still remain clear for us to see.

What have built things got to do with life, apart from the fact that like everything else in existence, including life-forms, they are made of rock and aare decaying through time ?



But you seem to suggest this is some univeral law and not a situation that can be rectified by historical forces.


Yes.


Germany in the 1920's could be seen as having lost its vitality, but with the political exegencies of age it had perhaps become the most virile culture of the world by the 1930's - not because of some "life span" but simply because of the personages in charge.

The nazis were degenerate.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Ferrus]

The nazis were degenerate.
They revived a failing economy, almost commited the perfect genocide and nearly conquered Europe: how is that degenerate?

[Krill]

They revived a failing economy, almost commited the perfect genocide and nearly conquered Europe: how is that degenerate?

Unless you're a Social Darwinist Sociopath, the Genocide and World-Conquering bits are pretty much morally degenerate in almost every way.

[Ferrus]

Unless you're a Social Darwinist Sociopath
Or a moral nihlist (sociopath is contentious).

The Nazis seem the epitome of virility, for they were able to assert their designs with utmost force.

I'm not advocating anti-semitism or racism of any sort, but fascist ideology has many interesting assertions for rationalists to ruminate on.

[Faust06]

Multiculturalism will weaken the US. You will become so diverse that you have nothing in common anymore. With no social unity, corruption will increase and you will turn into Mexico.

No. Social unity should have nothing to do with race or culture, but then racism is still around.

[Mountain_Recluse]

What will cause the collapse of the United States empire?

Americans being ignorant of or purposely undermining the foundational principles of liberty upon which this nation was built.

[Dr. Haight]

What will cause the collapse of the United States empire?

Americans being ignorant of or purposely undermining the foundational principles of liberty upon which this nation was built.
The nation was built on principles of liberty? What are these "principles" that you speak of ?

I mean, I don't won't to remain ignorant... so enlighten me.

Please.

[Mountain_Recluse]

The nation was built on principles of liberty? What are these "principles" that you speak of ?

I mean, I don't won't to remain ignorant... so enlighten me.

Please.
Start at your nearest library with Thomas Paine, Alexis de Tocqueville , Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Patrick Henry.

[Dr. Haight]

Start at your nearest library with Thomas Paine, Alexis de Tocqueville , Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Patrick Henry.
I knew you would find that question difficult to answer.

I know what the individual's above have written. I also know the reality of what the US was, rather than what the author's hoped, or even believed themselves. My only point here, is that US colonial history is not as simple as you are attempting to lead one to believe. Therefore, ignorance would be held by those that overstate these "principals of liberty," without attempting to separate the rhetoric from the reality.

[Claverhouse]

I knew you would find that question difficult to answer.


I think a sonorous statement of the Founding Fathers carries with it sufficient allusion to the things they stood for, and by extension what America stands for today, together with it's Historical Mission, to be entirely satisfactory enough to American citizens; and has a tradition of rich spare meaning that pleases. As in 'A Nod's As Good As A Wink To A Blind Horse'.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[MasterMerk]

Ideally, places where the United States has formerly invested in it's imperial power will assume independence from the US by forming trading alliances with other, less aggressive world superpowers (such as China and the EU) weakening the United State's stranglehold on the world economy and hence lessening their sheer military power to intervene where things don't go the way they want. This seems to be already happening in Latin America who have largely kicked out the bastards at the IMF, which is good news. The middle east is a whole 'nother animal, however. Nobody knows what's going to come of that, but you can bet your asses that the United States is not going to "pull out" of that gigantic oil field anytime soon, whether that be by supporting the forces of Israel, or the Iraq war.

The more pessimistic options have already been discussed in this thread.

[Dr. Haight]

... nicely done.

However, I would prefer that the word "allusion" be substituted with the word "illusion." It would bring us just that much closer to the reality of what was, and as you suggest, what is today.

Although, our new friend will not agree with you either; sad, but true.

[Ymir]

No. Social unity should have nothing to do with race or culture, but then racism is still around.
It has everything to do with race and culture. You can't change human nature, let's no fool ourselves.

[charred_heart]

It has everything to do with race and culture. You can't change human nature, let's no fool ourselves.you live in Norway, snow white land. You can't be expected to understand a multi cultural society. I am currently living in one and frankly I can't get used to my homogenously black country. It's not in human nature to pine for a society of one race, one culture or one religion - it's just how the majority of the world is brought up.

[Claverhouse]

It's not in human nature to pine for a society of one race, one culture or one religion - it's just how the majority of the world is brought up.

I like it anyway... :devil: But I can't imagine there are many muslims --- no matter how individually tolerant they are of other religions --- who do not want the whole world to be subject to Islam, world without end.


Claverhouse :ph34r:




[ And I'm not criticising them for that: it's goes with the territory. ]

[Ymir]

It's not in human nature to pine for a society of one race, one culture or one religion - it's just how the majority of the world is brought up.

Yes it is. How do you think most countries got created in the first place? Multicultural countries are unstable they are only hold together by the government. The result of lack of national unity is widespread corruption and racial politics. Your own country Sudan is an exampel of different cultureres not getting along.

[Dr. Haight]

Yes it is. How do you think most countries got created in the first place? Multicultural countries are unstable they are only hold together by the government. The result of lack of national unity is widespread corruption and racial politics. Your own country Sudan is an exampel of different cultureres not getting along.
Just put down the keyboard and back away from this thread.

This is for your own safety... I assure you.

[Heleuiski]

Yes it is. How do you think most countries got created in the first place? Multicultural countries are unstable they are only hold together by the government. The result of lack of national unity is widespread corruption and racial politics. Your own country Sudan is an exampel of different cultureres not getting along.

Many cultures get along side by side, it's how it is handled that's important.

Dr Haight is right.. for your own safety.. get out now.

[Ymir]

Just put down the keyboard and back away from this thread.

This is for your own safety... I assure you.
I'm staying within forum rules, and on topic. You however are crossing a line.

[Dr. Haight]

I'm staying within forum rules, and on topic. You however are crossing a line.
Sarcasm lives between the lines.

[Heleuiski]

I'm staying within forum rules, and on topic. You however are crossing a line.

Line? I saw no line?

[charred_heart]

Yes it is. How do you think most countries got created in the first place? Multicultural countries are unstable they are only hold together by the government. The result of lack of national unity is widespread corruption and racial politics. Your own country Sudan is an exampel of different cultureres not getting along.no, my country is an example of how a government composed of fundamentals with a racial (or tribal) bias causes chaos.

[charred_heart]

I like it anyway... :devil: But I can't imagine there are many muslims --- no matter how individually tolerant they are of other religions --- who do not want the whole world to be subject to Islam, world without end.


Claverhouse :ph34r:




[ And I'm not criticising them for that: it's goes with the territory. ]desire and preference are two different things claverhouse

[Claverhouse]

desire and preference are two different things claverhouse

The muslims may get it yet, with enough will.

But even if they do, like all things else, it shall pass away.

As for what I prefer in my country and for europe, that too may come to pass for a while. But again, few things matter in the end.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[LongSilence]

Indeed. What matters are the wars that occur before the things end.

[Ferrus]

All that matters is oneself, the vicissitudes of fate are beyond our control. Therefore it is foolish to fight against the current, but rather sapient to take advantage of it.

However I would prefer a fundamentalist religion of any sort to reign sumpreme where I live, simply because although I stand almost no chance of having sordid short affairs with members of the distaff side, I'd prefer it if the society didn't seek to make the less suggestible.

[Melody]

im deliciously reminded of the scenes from The Lord of the Rings where the high elf guy [elves are immortal remmeber] is telling his daughter she has no place in the mortal world -- where her beloved man [the king] will die and wither away and she will continue living, mourning for him eternally

the scene managed quite well to exemplify some of the notions and imagery i have about the transience of things. i love how they spared no expense making those films

[imfrellinggay]

GAYS! GAYS ARE DESTROYING THIS NATION! If we get rid of them, all the other problems will go away! The Jews and the Muslims will get along! The energy crisis will solve itself! Attila will readopt a Patsy avatar! :smooch:

[Krill]

GAYS! GAYS ARE DESTROYING THIS NATION!

Pretty much. What's up with all these people being gay?

They got no right to be happy.

[Ferrus]

she will continue living, mourning for him eternally
Actually she forfeits her immortality by marrying him and not travelling over the sea, although she still lives unnaturally long (as do Aragorn's half-elf children to a lesser extent).