Young patriotic White men should be joining or creating local militias, not enlisting in the Globohomo military. Such militia service is much less likely to generate the suicide problem we see with veterans of the Empire.
Another good historical analogy for the GAE is the Carthaginian empire, a thalassocracy that practiced ritual child sacrifice. However, I agree that Athens is also a good example, with the proviso that the American South is, or at any rate was, much more similar to Sparta. Pre-20th century America was an expansionist tellurocracy with a value structure to match; this was defeated by the mercantile sea power in the North, which has proceeded to behave as rapacious revolutionary sea powers have often behaved. The tension between American patriots and cosmopolitan cynics is largely a result of the latter subverting and redirecting the cultural instincts of the former towards their own ends.
Incidentally, another similarity is that the Athenians of the Peloponnesian age were extremely interested in exporting democracy, which was simultaneously a moralizing mission with nearly religious overtones, and a useful political tool that they used to establish control over lesser powers. The Spartans, by contrast, had no interest in exporting their political system, and came to oppose Athens as first among a coalition of cities and nations that just wanted to be left alone.
In the 21st century, I suppose Russia is the closest thing to Sparta, having emerged as leader of those peoples who just want to be left alone by the tiresome, self-righteous empire. China seems like it might be analogous to Sicily.
Ritual? No. More like industrial scale murder undertaken for the benefit of medical research and the support of feminists who are essential for managing the reproductive health of the female proletariat.
Child sacrifice was originally about securing divine support in war and good harvests. It was practiced by peoples who could expect to be crucified or impaled in the event of defeat and who were a failed harvest away from extinction at the very best of times. The sacrifice was public and would have instilled awe. The ritual murder of a child (above all the child of the king of a Bronze Age city state) demonstrated the resolve of the rulers.
Indescribably evil as such crimes were, they were not undertaken for the next quarter's profits or a miracle cure for aging sought by an incompetent gerontocracy. And the ancient people who performed such crimes existed thousands of years before the Scientific Revolution. The extremities which the magical thinking of our elites allow are, therefore, worse.
John, I'd say that awhile analogies are interesting to play with, their limitations need to be established.
The American South was an economic extension of the British Empire (which is why British imperialists, including many leading liberals, were keen supporters of the Confederacy). Agriculture (tobacco and cotton) were export crops. The plantations of the US (like those of the Caribbean and Brazil) closely resembled the latifundia of classical and Hellenistic Sicily, rather than Sparta whose economy was autarchic and anti-mercantile and whose farms produced for the sake of subsistence alone. Commercial agriculture is nothing like subsistence agriculture...the cultures and polities which each type make possible are wildly different.
The slaves who laboured in the South were descended from those traded internationally...they were nothing like the helots of Sparta, who were the descendants of conquered indigenes.
The Spartans did not export their singular constitution (nothing like it existed anywhere else), but they supported compatible aristocracies, either as allies (Thebes and Aegina) or as quislings.
Are sea-powers especially rapacious compared to land-powers? No. It all depends on how close you are to the coast, how weak your army/navy, how nasty your neighbours and what resources are within reach. The rapacity of the Romans, Aztecs, Mongols and a thousand others speaks for itself.
A good piece and I am in broad agreement. However, I have two reservations.
Firstly, the rhetoric of contrasting real Americans with globalists is misleading. The imperium governed from Washington is not alien, it has its institutional and intellectual roots in the very fabric of the USA. What we are seeing is the exhaustion of the millenarian foreign policy of the Wilson Administration, which has been further developed by every successive administration since. Those administrations had the support of vast numbers of Americans.
Secondly, while the benefits of empire are increasingly reserved for a fraction within the elite, the masses have also benefited from the extractive character of US trade and monetary policy since the early 70s. The petrodollar and the trade deficits bought two generations of social peace. They enabled social engineering by Democrats and Republicans alike.
What we are witnessing is a truly systemic crisis on par with the disintegration of the USSR. By definition responsibility cannot be apportioned exclusively to a corrupt elite or a pack of rogues and misfits in politics.
This misses the point. It wasn't a benefit if its end result is where we are now. Stolen loot distributed to peons only appears to be a benefit (in the short term), but it directs society away from honest work and toward dependence on the Empire. The same might be said about welfare legislation in the 1960's; Blacks were doing fairly well by such measures as percentage of fatherless families. But it wasn't long before people started responding to the perverse incentives and decided fathers were not needed after all. Welfare legislation was not a true benefit.
"If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intent of doing you good, you should run for your life."
You are right, but only up to a point. Political decisions should indeed be assessed by their ultimate consequences. And it is clear by now that the long-term consequences of the economic policies of the US have been catastrophic.
However, the complacency with which Americans (and others) approached the empire for generations makes it important to ensure that responsibility for the current mess should be apportioned honestly. Simply blaming 'globalists', as so many do, seems to me to be absurd, lazy and misleading. The US electorate had meaningful choices in various electoral contests and could have constrained the champions of economic liberalism had they chosen to do so.
As for welfare, this is an extraordinarily vexed issue. The welfare state was a response to the threat of social unrest. Good intentions had nothing to do with it. Support for the welfare state has shifted over time from the Centre, Right and Far Right to the Left. The alternatives to providing welfare are simple: either opportunity, redistribution of equity or revolution. Personally, I'd prefer opportunity, class compromise and a pragmatic approach all round.
It would be very interesting to see a poll of genuinely patriotic Americans as to which side of the Ukraine/Russian conflict they want to see win. I think I know the answer.
Very good post. I was thinking the other day how the style of diplomacy of the GAE is very similar to France under Napoleon. Use deceit an intrigue as the primary weapons and backstab your supposed allies as soon as its beneficial to your interests. The fatal flaw of Napoleon, as man, proved to be is inability to truly make allies in the world stage, that same defect will bring the GAE down as American power recedes.
I have to take issue with the clear distinction you draw between American interests and the interests of the American empire. While that distinction is valid in most cases, its undeniable that the characteristic of the GAE have deep roots in traditional American society. Americas foreign policy reflects this since at least Woodrow Wilson.
The basic Tennent of the GAE is that a human is nothing more than an Integer who can be molded and manipulated, by social engineering , into being more governable for the benefit of the elites. In my opinion, this idea is and always was intrinsic to the United States. That's why only there could the new deal regime have appeared.
The end of the empire (an intrinsically good thing) will require patience. A geopolitical rout has the potential for any number of problems that need to be avoided. The confused and demoralised condition of the UK and France since WW2 offers a relatively mild example of what happens when the loss of empire takes place. In the US this process is likely to be more bitter and contentious by an order of magnitude. The interwar experience of the defeated Central Powers (Germany, Austria and Hungary) is worth bearing in mind.
The US is financed by its allies/trading partners through the bond market. Any retreat that is not accomplished very carefully will precipitate an unprecedented financial disaster, with attendant consequences for social cohesion. Furthermore, an America that is less exposed to global trade and financial flows will have to supply more of its own needs. This requires a thorough restructuring of the US domestic economy. All of which will come at a cost.
You really struck gold with this, TC. Would fit nicely in my "How Things Work" "Natural Law" and "Unified Theory" categories. I'd be proud if you'd allow me to post it alongside other essays. The sort of analysis that will be beneficial 50 yrs from now as well as this week.
Speaking from the genuine heart of Australia, in the Top End of the Northern Territory, this is all so simple.
First, terminate all politicians, CIA agents, investment bankers, and White House personnel, including that strange and demented impersonator you call Joe Biden. Then declare a democracy, as defined by Abraham Lincoln. That's it. Nothing more is needed. But wait. Kill Rupert Murdoch.
Then we can dismantle your Five Eyes and your several satellite spy thingamies, send your CIA and marine companies back home, and revert to our former roles of competing for honours in yachting, rock and blues music, and movie making.
Young patriotic White men should be joining or creating local militias, not enlisting in the Globohomo military. Such militia service is much less likely to generate the suicide problem we see with veterans of the Empire.
Another good historical analogy for the GAE is the Carthaginian empire, a thalassocracy that practiced ritual child sacrifice. However, I agree that Athens is also a good example, with the proviso that the American South is, or at any rate was, much more similar to Sparta. Pre-20th century America was an expansionist tellurocracy with a value structure to match; this was defeated by the mercantile sea power in the North, which has proceeded to behave as rapacious revolutionary sea powers have often behaved. The tension between American patriots and cosmopolitan cynics is largely a result of the latter subverting and redirecting the cultural instincts of the former towards their own ends.
Incidentally, another similarity is that the Athenians of the Peloponnesian age were extremely interested in exporting democracy, which was simultaneously a moralizing mission with nearly religious overtones, and a useful political tool that they used to establish control over lesser powers. The Spartans, by contrast, had no interest in exporting their political system, and came to oppose Athens as first among a coalition of cities and nations that just wanted to be left alone.
In the 21st century, I suppose Russia is the closest thing to Sparta, having emerged as leader of those peoples who just want to be left alone by the tiresome, self-righteous empire. China seems like it might be analogous to Sicily.
The regime is most definitely practicing ritual child sacrifice, for the sun god PhizerTrans.
I prefer to think of Pfizertrans as a death goddess, most often seen wearing green.
Ritual? No. More like industrial scale murder undertaken for the benefit of medical research and the support of feminists who are essential for managing the reproductive health of the female proletariat.
Child sacrifice was originally about securing divine support in war and good harvests. It was practiced by peoples who could expect to be crucified or impaled in the event of defeat and who were a failed harvest away from extinction at the very best of times. The sacrifice was public and would have instilled awe. The ritual murder of a child (above all the child of the king of a Bronze Age city state) demonstrated the resolve of the rulers.
Indescribably evil as such crimes were, they were not undertaken for the next quarter's profits or a miracle cure for aging sought by an incompetent gerontocracy. And the ancient people who performed such crimes existed thousands of years before the Scientific Revolution. The extremities which the magical thinking of our elites allow are, therefore, worse.
John, I'd say that awhile analogies are interesting to play with, their limitations need to be established.
The American South was an economic extension of the British Empire (which is why British imperialists, including many leading liberals, were keen supporters of the Confederacy). Agriculture (tobacco and cotton) were export crops. The plantations of the US (like those of the Caribbean and Brazil) closely resembled the latifundia of classical and Hellenistic Sicily, rather than Sparta whose economy was autarchic and anti-mercantile and whose farms produced for the sake of subsistence alone. Commercial agriculture is nothing like subsistence agriculture...the cultures and polities which each type make possible are wildly different.
The slaves who laboured in the South were descended from those traded internationally...they were nothing like the helots of Sparta, who were the descendants of conquered indigenes.
The Spartans did not export their singular constitution (nothing like it existed anywhere else), but they supported compatible aristocracies, either as allies (Thebes and Aegina) or as quislings.
Are sea-powers especially rapacious compared to land-powers? No. It all depends on how close you are to the coast, how weak your army/navy, how nasty your neighbours and what resources are within reach. The rapacity of the Romans, Aztecs, Mongols and a thousand others speaks for itself.
A good piece and I am in broad agreement. However, I have two reservations.
Firstly, the rhetoric of contrasting real Americans with globalists is misleading. The imperium governed from Washington is not alien, it has its institutional and intellectual roots in the very fabric of the USA. What we are seeing is the exhaustion of the millenarian foreign policy of the Wilson Administration, which has been further developed by every successive administration since. Those administrations had the support of vast numbers of Americans.
Secondly, while the benefits of empire are increasingly reserved for a fraction within the elite, the masses have also benefited from the extractive character of US trade and monetary policy since the early 70s. The petrodollar and the trade deficits bought two generations of social peace. They enabled social engineering by Democrats and Republicans alike.
What we are witnessing is a truly systemic crisis on par with the disintegration of the USSR. By definition responsibility cannot be apportioned exclusively to a corrupt elite or a pack of rogues and misfits in politics.
"the masses have also benefited"
This misses the point. It wasn't a benefit if its end result is where we are now. Stolen loot distributed to peons only appears to be a benefit (in the short term), but it directs society away from honest work and toward dependence on the Empire. The same might be said about welfare legislation in the 1960's; Blacks were doing fairly well by such measures as percentage of fatherless families. But it wasn't long before people started responding to the perverse incentives and decided fathers were not needed after all. Welfare legislation was not a true benefit.
"If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intent of doing you good, you should run for your life."
~~ Henry David Thoreau
You are right, but only up to a point. Political decisions should indeed be assessed by their ultimate consequences. And it is clear by now that the long-term consequences of the economic policies of the US have been catastrophic.
However, the complacency with which Americans (and others) approached the empire for generations makes it important to ensure that responsibility for the current mess should be apportioned honestly. Simply blaming 'globalists', as so many do, seems to me to be absurd, lazy and misleading. The US electorate had meaningful choices in various electoral contests and could have constrained the champions of economic liberalism had they chosen to do so.
As for welfare, this is an extraordinarily vexed issue. The welfare state was a response to the threat of social unrest. Good intentions had nothing to do with it. Support for the welfare state has shifted over time from the Centre, Right and Far Right to the Left. The alternatives to providing welfare are simple: either opportunity, redistribution of equity or revolution. Personally, I'd prefer opportunity, class compromise and a pragmatic approach all round.
It would be very interesting to see a poll of genuinely patriotic Americans as to which side of the Ukraine/Russian conflict they want to see win. I think I know the answer.
Very good post. I was thinking the other day how the style of diplomacy of the GAE is very similar to France under Napoleon. Use deceit an intrigue as the primary weapons and backstab your supposed allies as soon as its beneficial to your interests. The fatal flaw of Napoleon, as man, proved to be is inability to truly make allies in the world stage, that same defect will bring the GAE down as American power recedes.
I have to take issue with the clear distinction you draw between American interests and the interests of the American empire. While that distinction is valid in most cases, its undeniable that the characteristic of the GAE have deep roots in traditional American society. Americas foreign policy reflects this since at least Woodrow Wilson.
The basic Tennent of the GAE is that a human is nothing more than an Integer who can be molded and manipulated, by social engineering , into being more governable for the benefit of the elites. In my opinion, this idea is and always was intrinsic to the United States. That's why only there could the new deal regime have appeared.
The end of the empire (an intrinsically good thing) will require patience. A geopolitical rout has the potential for any number of problems that need to be avoided. The confused and demoralised condition of the UK and France since WW2 offers a relatively mild example of what happens when the loss of empire takes place. In the US this process is likely to be more bitter and contentious by an order of magnitude. The interwar experience of the defeated Central Powers (Germany, Austria and Hungary) is worth bearing in mind.
The US is financed by its allies/trading partners through the bond market. Any retreat that is not accomplished very carefully will precipitate an unprecedented financial disaster, with attendant consequences for social cohesion. Furthermore, an America that is less exposed to global trade and financial flows will have to supply more of its own needs. This requires a thorough restructuring of the US domestic economy. All of which will come at a cost.
You really struck gold with this, TC. Would fit nicely in my "How Things Work" "Natural Law" and "Unified Theory" categories. I'd be proud if you'd allow me to post it alongside other essays. The sort of analysis that will be beneficial 50 yrs from now as well as this week.
My dear American cousins...
Speaking from the genuine heart of Australia, in the Top End of the Northern Territory, this is all so simple.
First, terminate all politicians, CIA agents, investment bankers, and White House personnel, including that strange and demented impersonator you call Joe Biden. Then declare a democracy, as defined by Abraham Lincoln. That's it. Nothing more is needed. But wait. Kill Rupert Murdoch.
Then we can dismantle your Five Eyes and your several satellite spy thingamies, send your CIA and marine companies back home, and revert to our former roles of competing for honours in yachting, rock and blues music, and movie making.
We were so happy in those days.
Who? Theophilus Chilton? He probaby died in 1907 or, if not, lives in NY, aged 130.
Avgust, I can recommend maths remedial teachers..
Unless I entirely misconstrue, me? tonyryan43@mail.com
Hi, you can email me at tqcincinnatus@protonmail.com if you want!