Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump, Bannon and the Coming Crisis
#61
(01-28-2017, 05:59 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: And yet the Empire had been demographically stagnating for a couple of centuries, trade was already breaking down during the crisis of the third century, the Empire itself broke into pieces, and the Huns themselves did not end up toppling the Empire, even in the West.  The very fact their army increasingly relied on Germans auxillaries and generals towards the end should be a sign.  

Historical revisionism is fun and all, but this sort of thing is a little absurd.  The Romans were not going from strength to strength until they encountered a civilization they couldn't handle, they had been falling for 3 centuries before Odoacer topple Romulus Augustulus.

The Roman Empire was also stagnating in technology and culture. The slave system that became even more dominant ensured the absence of as middle class of entrepreneurs and technical people who might have given the Roman world a stimulus that might have forced it into something more modern. Just imagine the Romans with steam engines (which would have proved useful for steamships and railroads), bicycles, and the printing press. Imagine them with a fully-capitalist order. Sure, it would have been an environmental catastrophe...

People in despair from economic distress and political chaos quit looking forward to happiness in This World, and turned to what desperate people have often done  -- to Pie in the Sky When You Die, which Christianity eventually expressed best. Thus Christianity won out over alternatives in exotic cults.  But Christianity had its demographic consequences in encouraging multitudes to become monks and nuns and to not procreate, and in disparaging business. The Roman Empire was both authoritarian and chaotic, offering safety to nobody but plenty of opportunity for the most ruthless operators.

The big question was not when the Empire would collapse. By the mid-5th century, what remained of the Roman Empire was a shell. Odoacer simply deposed Romulus Augustulus in 476 and had no need of another Emperor as a vassal that the successors of Julius Caesar had been.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#62
(01-28-2017, 06:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 05:59 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: And yet the Empire had been demographically stagnating for a couple of centuries, trade was already breaking down during the crisis of the third century, the Empire itself broke into pieces, and the Huns themselves did not end up toppling the Empire, even in the West.  The very fact their army increasingly relied on Germans auxillaries and generals towards the end should be a sign.  

Historical revisionism is fun and all, but this sort of thing is a little absurd.  The Romans were not going from strength to strength until they encountered a civilization they couldn't handle, they had been falling for 3 centuries before Odoacer topple Romulus Augustulus.

The Roman Empire was also stagnating in technology and culture. The slave system that became even more dominant ensured the absence of as middle class of entrepreneurs and technical people who might have given the Roman world a stimulus that might have forced it into something more modern. Just imagine the Romans with steam engines (which would have proved useful for steamships and railroads), bicycles, and the printing press. Imagine them with a fully-capitalist order. Sure, it would have been an environmental catastrophe...

People in despair from economic distress and political chaos quit looking forward to happiness in This World, and turned to what desperate people have often done  -- to Pie in the Sky When You Die, which Christianity eventually expressed best. Thus Christianity won out over alternatives in exotic cults.  But Christianity had its demographic consequences in encouraging multitudes to become monks and nuns and to not procreate, and in disparaging business. The Roman Empire was both authoritarian and chaotic, offering safety to nobody but plenty of opportunity for the most ruthless operators.

The big question was not when the Empire would collapse. By the mid-5th century, what remained of the Roman Empire was a shell. Odoacer simply deposed Romulus Augustulus in 476 and had no need of another Emperor as a vassal that the successors of Julius Caesar had been.

I'm pretty sure he actually sent the insignia of office to the sitting emperor in the East with the expectation that he would be confirmed as the next one, as had frequently been the practice over the past couple hundred years.  The Emperor sent Theoderic instead, and he was the one who eschewed the title of Emperor in favor of King.

And the Empire up to about 180 was actually a pretty thriving place.  Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius really had their shit together.  The Antonine plagues, Commodus, the whole of the 3rd century, is when the wheels really started to come off the whole thing.

So that, yeah, by the 5th century the Western Empire was pretty much a bad joke.
Reply
#63
(01-28-2017, 08:49 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 06:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 05:59 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: And yet the Empire had been demographically stagnating for a couple of centuries, trade was already breaking down during the crisis of the third century, the Empire itself broke into pieces, and the Huns themselves did not end up toppling the Empire, even in the West.  The very fact their army increasingly relied on Germans auxillaries and generals towards the end should be a sign.  

Historical revisionism is fun and all, but this sort of thing is a little absurd.  The Romans were not going from strength to strength until they encountered a civilization they couldn't handle, they had been falling for 3 centuries before Odoacer topple Romulus Augustulus.

The Roman Empire was also stagnating in technology and culture. The slave system that became even more dominant ensured the absence of as middle class of entrepreneurs and technical people who might have given the Roman world a stimulus that might have forced it into something more modern. Just imagine the Romans with steam engines (which would have proved useful for steamships and railroads), bicycles, and the printing press. Imagine them with a fully-capitalist order. Sure, it would have been an environmental catastrophe...

People in despair from economic distress and political chaos quit looking forward to happiness in This World, and turned to what desperate people have often done  -- to Pie in the Sky When You Die, which Christianity eventually expressed best. Thus Christianity won out over alternatives in exotic cults.  But Christianity had its demographic consequences in encouraging multitudes to become monks and nuns and to not procreate, and in disparaging business. The Roman Empire was both authoritarian and chaotic, offering safety to nobody but plenty of opportunity for the most ruthless operators.

The big question was not when the Empire would collapse. By the mid-5th century, what remained of the Roman Empire was a shell. Odoacer simply deposed Romulus Augustulus in 476 and had no need of another Emperor as a vassal that the successors of Julius Caesar had been.

I'm pretty sure he actually sent the insignia of office to the sitting emperor in the East with the expectation that he would be confirmed as the next one, as had frequently been the practice over the past couple hundred years.  The Emperor sent Theoderic instead, and he was the one who eschewed the title of Emperor in favor of King.

And the Empire up to about 180 was actually a pretty thriving place.  Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius really had their shit together.  The Antonine plagues, Commodus, the whole of the 3rd century, is when the wheels really started to come off the whole thing.

So that, yeah, by the 5th century the Western Empire was pretty much a bad joke.

I have read a two-volume condensed version of Toynbee's A Study in History, in which Toynbee recognizes the civilization as the unit of history. The civilization goes into decline when one political entity comes to dominate the civilization, whether that civilization is an internal figure (like Julius Caesar) who consolidates the civilization around one political entity or a foreign power (the Spanish Crown in Mexico or Peru, or the British in India) take over the entire civilization and standardize the political and economic life.  Just imagine the West falling to the Mongols (who turned back at Liegnitz, Silesia (now Legnica, Poland) upon news that the Great Khan had died. The most powerful Western kingdoms of the time in Austria and France could not have stopped the Mongols. (An aside: the timeline that I imagine has the Mongols intermarrying with the Bourbon monarchs of France, and the line of the Marseillaise

qu'un sang impur/abreuve nos sillons

that bastard blood/ shall moisten our fields

would have been literal in its meaning, referring to an aristocracy with an obvious Mongol admixture). Or some of the 'evil empires' that we could have had -- Inquisition-era Spain, Napoleonic France, Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union as the Universal State that seals the demise of the civilization. All gone. Should the USA become the Evil Empire with such a prospect of encompassing the entire West, then it probably brings about the steady demise of the West.

What happens? A privileged elite defines itself as the object for which the whole civilization must defer. The system crushes innovation, imagination, and enterprise. Of course one can read anything into someone like Toynbee, and I can read "Donald Trump is a nightmare" into his Study if I so wish much as I can read "Adolf Hitler was the Antichrist" into Revelation. Toynbee used the analogy of a pleasant Indian Summer to describe the Antonine era. After Marcus Aurelius, the western part of the Roman Empire simply rotted.  (Some evidence suggests that the civilization associated with Rome died around AD 535 with some meteorological calamity unleashed upon a weakened world, which coincides with the disappearance of King Arthur in Wales, and bad times from Byzantium to China and the New World). Soon after the Indian Summer comes to an end comes winter.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#64
Speaking of Bannon, apparently now he's going to be on the National Security Council.
Reply
#65
A propagandist (Breitbart) on the National Security Council. Why does that trouble me?

"Do not lie, cheat, or steal; do not tolerate deceit, chicanery, or theft by others".... one possible interpretation of the honor codes of the Service Academies. Just imagine the clash.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#66
(01-30-2017, 02:36 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Speaking of Bannon, apparently now he's going to be on the National Security Council.

Of course, Wormtongue has to stay next to the king. Bannon is the most dangerous person in the world right now, he's the real one running the show while Trump watches what Cable News is saying about him.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#67
(01-30-2017, 06:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: A propagandist (Breitbart) on the National Security Council. Why does that trouble me?

"Do not lie, cheat, or steal; do not tolerate deceit, chicanery, or theft by others".... one possible interpretation of the honor codes of the Service Academies. Just imagine the clash.

Any evidence that he did any of those things?

Me, I think it's a good thing to have someone with exposure to the generational cycle on the Council.
Reply
#68
(01-30-2017, 01:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 08:49 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 06:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 05:59 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: And yet the Empire had been demographically stagnating for a couple of centuries, trade was already breaking down during the crisis of the third century, the Empire itself broke into pieces, and the Huns themselves did not end up toppling the Empire, even in the West.  The very fact their army increasingly relied on Germans auxillaries and generals towards the end should be a sign.  

Historical revisionism is fun and all, but this sort of thing is a little absurd.  The Romans were not going from strength to strength until they encountered a civilization they couldn't handle, they had been falling for 3 centuries before Odoacer topple Romulus Augustulus.

The Roman Empire was also stagnating in technology and culture. The slave system that became even more dominant ensured the absence of as middle class of entrepreneurs and technical people who might have given the Roman world a stimulus that might have forced it into something more modern. Just imagine the Romans with steam engines (which would have proved useful for steamships and railroads), bicycles, and the printing press. Imagine them with a fully-capitalist order. Sure, it would have been an environmental catastrophe...

People in despair from economic distress and political chaos quit looking forward to happiness in This World, and turned to what desperate people have often done  -- to Pie in the Sky When You Die, which Christianity eventually expressed best. Thus Christianity won out over alternatives in exotic cults.  But Christianity had its demographic consequences in encouraging multitudes to become monks and nuns and to not procreate, and in disparaging business. The Roman Empire was both authoritarian and chaotic, offering safety to nobody but plenty of opportunity for the most ruthless operators.

The big question was not when the Empire would collapse. By the mid-5th century, what remained of the Roman Empire was a shell. Odoacer simply deposed Romulus Augustulus in 476 and had no need of another Emperor as a vassal that the successors of Julius Caesar had been.

I'm pretty sure he actually sent the insignia of office to the sitting emperor in the East with the expectation that he would be confirmed as the next one, as had frequently been the practice over the past couple hundred years.  The Emperor sent Theoderic instead, and he was the one who eschewed the title of Emperor in favor of King.

And the Empire up to about 180 was actually a pretty thriving place.  Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius really had their shit together.  The Antonine plagues, Commodus, the whole of the 3rd century, is when the wheels really started to come off the whole thing.

So that, yeah, by the 5th century the Western Empire was pretty much a bad joke.

I have read a two-volume condensed version of Toynbee's A Study in History, in which Toynbee recognizes the civilization as the unit of history. The civilization goes into decline when one political entity comes to dominate the civilization, whether that civilization is an internal figure (like Julius Caesar) who consolidates the civilization around one political entity or a foreign power (the Spanish Crown in Mexico or Peru, or the British in India) take over the entire civilization and standardize the political and economic life.  Just imagine the West falling to the Mongols (who turned back at Liegnitz, Silesia (now  Legnica, Poland) upon news that the Great Khan had died. The most powerful Western kingdoms of the time in Austria and France could not have stopped the Mongols. (An aside: the timeline that I imagine has the Mongols intermarrying with the Bourbon monarchs of France, and the line of the Marseillaise

qu'un sang impur/abreuve nos sillons

that bastard blood/ shall moisten our fields

would have been literal in its meaning, referring to an aristocracy with an obvious Mongol admixture). Or some of the 'evil empires' that we could have had -- Inquisition-era Spain, Napoleonic France, Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union as the Universal State that seals the demise of the civilization. All gone. Should the USA become the Evil Empire with such a prospect of encompassing the entire West, then it probably brings about the steady demise of the West.

What happens? A privileged elite defines itself as the object for which the whole civilization must defer. The system crushes innovation, imagination, and enterprise. Of course one can read anything into someone like Toynbee, and I can read "Donald Trump is a nightmare" into his Study if I so wish much as I can read "Adolf Hitler was the Antichrist" into Revelation. Toynbee used the analogy of a pleasant Indian Summer to describe the Antonine era. After Marcus Aurelius, the western part of the Roman Empire simply rotted.  (Some evidence suggests that the civilization associated with Rome died around AD 535 with some meteorological calamity unleashed upon a weakened world, which coincides with the disappearance of King Arthur in Wales, and bad times from Byzantium to China and the New World). Soon after the Indian Summer comes to an end comes winter.

The DC Somervell abridgement?  Have read it.  As for the rest, well on the transition to the Universal State, historically speaking.  We have a little while to go, in people terms.  Trump is not Caesar, or Augustus.
Reply
#69
(01-30-2017, 07:42 AM)Odin Wrote:
(01-30-2017, 02:36 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Speaking of Bannon, apparently now he's going to be on the National Security Council.

Of course, Wormtongue has to stay next to the king. Bannon is the most dangerous person in the world right now, he's the real one running the show while Trump watches what Cable News is saying about him.

Wouldn't that make Trump Theoden?  Don't really think that's the message you're going for. Wink
Reply
#70
(01-30-2017, 10:41 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(01-30-2017, 01:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 08:49 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 06:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 05:59 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: And yet the Empire had been demographically stagnating for a couple of centuries, trade was already breaking down during the crisis of the third century, the Empire itself broke into pieces, and the Huns themselves did not end up toppling the Empire, even in the West.  The very fact their army increasingly relied on Germans auxillaries and generals towards the end should be a sign.  

Historical revisionism is fun and all, but this sort of thing is a little absurd.  The Romans were not going from strength to strength until they encountered a civilization they couldn't handle, they had been falling for 3 centuries before Odoacer topple Romulus Augustulus.

The Roman Empire was also stagnating in technology and culture. The slave system that became even more dominant ensured the absence of as middle class of entrepreneurs and technical people who might have given the Roman world a stimulus that might have forced it into something more modern. Just imagine the Romans with steam engines (which would have proved useful for steamships and railroads), bicycles, and the printing press. Imagine them with a fully-capitalist order. Sure, it would have been an environmental catastrophe...

People in despair from economic distress and political chaos quit looking forward to happiness in This World, and turned to what desperate people have often done  -- to Pie in the Sky When You Die, which Christianity eventually expressed best. Thus Christianity won out over alternatives in exotic cults.  But Christianity had its demographic consequences in encouraging multitudes to become monks and nuns and to not procreate, and in disparaging business. The Roman Empire was both authoritarian and chaotic, offering safety to nobody but plenty of opportunity for the most ruthless operators.

The big question was not when the Empire would collapse. By the mid-5th century, what remained of the Roman Empire was a shell. Odoacer simply deposed Romulus Augustulus in 476 and had no need of another Emperor as a vassal that the successors of Julius Caesar had been.

I'm pretty sure he actually sent the insignia of office to the sitting emperor in the East with the expectation that he would be confirmed as the next one, as had frequently been the practice over the past couple hundred years.  The Emperor sent Theoderic instead, and he was the one who eschewed the title of Emperor in favor of King.

And the Empire up to about 180 was actually a pretty thriving place.  Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius really had their shit together.  The Antonine plagues, Commodus, the whole of the 3rd century, is when the wheels really started to come off the whole thing.

So that, yeah, by the 5th century the Western Empire was pretty much a bad joke.

I have read a two-volume condensed version of Toynbee's A Study in History, in which Toynbee recognizes the civilization as the unit of history. The civilization goes into decline when one political entity comes to dominate the civilization, whether that civilization is an internal figure (like Julius Caesar) who consolidates the civilization around one political entity or a foreign power (the Spanish Crown in Mexico or Peru, or the British in India) take over the entire civilization and standardize the political and economic life.  Just imagine the West falling to the Mongols (who turned back at Liegnitz, Silesia (now  Legnica, Poland) upon news that the Great Khan had died. The most powerful Western kingdoms of the time in Austria and France could not have stopped the Mongols. (An aside: the timeline that I imagine has the Mongols intermarrying with the Bourbon monarchs of France, and the line of the Marseillaise

qu'un sang impur/abreuve nos sillons

that bastard blood/ shall moisten our fields

would have been literal in its meaning, referring to an aristocracy with an obvious Mongol admixture). Or some of the 'evil empires' that we could have had -- Inquisition-era Spain, Napoleonic France, Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union as the Universal State that seals the demise of the civilization. All gone. Should the USA become the Evil Empire with such a prospect of encompassing the entire West, then it probably brings about the steady demise of the West.

What happens? A privileged elite defines itself as the object for which the whole civilization must defer. The system crushes innovation, imagination, and enterprise. Of course one can read anything into someone like Toynbee, and I can read "Donald Trump is a nightmare" into his Study if I so wish much as I can read "Adolf Hitler was the Antichrist" into Revelation. Toynbee used the analogy of a pleasant Indian Summer to describe the Antonine era. After Marcus Aurelius, the western part of the Roman Empire simply rotted.  (Some evidence suggests that the civilization associated with Rome died around AD 535 with some meteorological calamity unleashed upon a weakened world, which coincides with the disappearance of King Arthur in Wales, and bad times from Byzantium to China and the New World). Soon after the Indian Summer comes to an end comes winter.

The DC Somervell abridgement?  Have read it.  As for the rest, well on the transition to the Universal State, historically speaking.  We have a little while to go, in people terms.  Trump is not Caesar, or Augustus.

I can think of someone in American history comparable in importance to Julius Caesar -- George Washington. The first anti-colonial revolution creating a superpower from its inception? Wage war against the United States and get mauled badly, at best.

This time if the USA gets involved in a war with Donald Trump as President, then we are likely to be mauled badly. I have seen suggestions that the USA is in roughly the same stage of history as the latter days of the Roman Republic... sure, we have no king, but the politicians are becoming increasingly ruthless.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#71
(01-30-2017, 12:25 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: They are positioning us unwittingly for the slaughter (I am being generous, there is a possibility they are actual enemy agents doing it willingly).

While we bicker, to the East, the relentless preparations for war continue. Death will be launched from Kaliningrad and other forward deployment zones. There will be a similar scenario in the Western Pacific. Our collective eyes are now completely off the ball, now that we are turning inward.

The medal bedecked sinister fiends grin.

Yeah, George Soros I take it as well. That POS should be hung for inciting sedition and committing treason. He's the one behind the mess in Euroland and now he's trying to do one of his color revolutions right here in the USA. After the hanging, expropriate all of his wealth and divvy up among the several states. So it goes, I suppose, he's the 3rd leg of the triad. Cool  So , it's written, we know who's behind the
  Black Bloc
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#72
(01-30-2017, 05:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-30-2017, 10:41 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(01-30-2017, 01:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 08:49 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 06:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Roman Empire was also stagnating in technology and culture. The slave system that became even more dominant ensured the absence of as middle class of entrepreneurs and technical people who might have given the Roman world a stimulus that might have forced it into something more modern. Just imagine the Romans with steam engines (which would have proved useful for steamships and railroads), bicycles, and the printing press. Imagine them with a fully-capitalist order. Sure, it would have been an environmental catastrophe...

People in despair from economic distress and political chaos quit looking forward to happiness in This World, and turned to what desperate people have often done  -- to Pie in the Sky When You Die, which Christianity eventually expressed best. Thus Christianity won out over alternatives in exotic cults.  But Christianity had its demographic consequences in encouraging multitudes to become monks and nuns and to not procreate, and in disparaging business. The Roman Empire was both authoritarian and chaotic, offering safety to nobody but plenty of opportunity for the most ruthless operators.

The big question was not when the Empire would collapse. By the mid-5th century, what remained of the Roman Empire was a shell. Odoacer simply deposed Romulus Augustulus in 476 and had no need of another Emperor as a vassal that the successors of Julius Caesar had been.

I'm pretty sure he actually sent the insignia of office to the sitting emperor in the East with the expectation that he would be confirmed as the next one, as had frequently been the practice over the past couple hundred years.  The Emperor sent Theoderic instead, and he was the one who eschewed the title of Emperor in favor of King.

And the Empire up to about 180 was actually a pretty thriving place.  Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius really had their shit together.  The Antonine plagues, Commodus, the whole of the 3rd century, is when the wheels really started to come off the whole thing.

So that, yeah, by the 5th century the Western Empire was pretty much a bad joke.

I have read a two-volume condensed version of Toynbee's A Study in History, in which Toynbee recognizes the civilization as the unit of history. The civilization goes into decline when one political entity comes to dominate the civilization, whether that civilization is an internal figure (like Julius Caesar) who consolidates the civilization around one political entity or a foreign power (the Spanish Crown in Mexico or Peru, or the British in India) take over the entire civilization and standardize the political and economic life.  Just imagine the West falling to the Mongols (who turned back at Liegnitz, Silesia (now  Legnica, Poland) upon news that the Great Khan had died. The most powerful Western kingdoms of the time in Austria and France could not have stopped the Mongols. (An aside: the timeline that I imagine has the Mongols intermarrying with the Bourbon monarchs of France, and the line of the Marseillaise

qu'un sang impur/abreuve nos sillons

that bastard blood/ shall moisten our fields

would have been literal in its meaning, referring to an aristocracy with an obvious Mongol admixture). Or some of the 'evil empires' that we could have had -- Inquisition-era Spain, Napoleonic France, Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union as the Universal State that seals the demise of the civilization. All gone. Should the USA become the Evil Empire with such a prospect of encompassing the entire West, then it probably brings about the steady demise of the West.

What happens? A privileged elite defines itself as the object for which the whole civilization must defer. The system crushes innovation, imagination, and enterprise. Of course one can read anything into someone like Toynbee, and I can read "Donald Trump is a nightmare" into his Study if I so wish much as I can read "Adolf Hitler was the Antichrist" into Revelation. Toynbee used the analogy of a pleasant Indian Summer to describe the Antonine era. After Marcus Aurelius, the western part of the Roman Empire simply rotted.  (Some evidence suggests that the civilization associated with Rome died around AD 535 with some meteorological calamity unleashed upon a weakened world, which coincides with the disappearance of King Arthur in Wales, and bad times from Byzantium to China and the New World). Soon after the Indian Summer comes to an end comes winter.

The DC Somervell abridgement?  Have read it.  As for the rest, well on the transition to the Universal State, historically speaking.  We have a little while to go, in people terms.  Trump is not Caesar, or Augustus.

I can think of someone in American history comparable in importance to Julius Caesar -- George Washington. The first anti-colonial revolution creating a superpower from its inception? Wage war against the United States and get mauled badly, at best.

This time if the USA gets involved in a war with Donald Trump as President, then we are likely to be mauled badly. I have seen suggestions that the USA is in roughly the same stage of history as the latter days of the Roman Republic... sure, we have no king, but the politicians are becoming increasingly ruthless.

Yes, a number of people, myself included, have looked at our present position, referenced Toynbee and Spengler, and suggested that we are roughly equivalent to the late Roman Republic of the Classical Civilization.  However, going by this model (which is not to be confused with a fact, for those who are reading), we are not yet at the stage of Caesar and Octavian (which is actually a period of a few decades), but the crisis before, when the conflict between the populares and the optimates was really heating up.  Don't think there are direct analogues (Trump as Sulla, or one of the Grachii, etc.), as I mentioned to you before.

Quote:I can think of someone in American history comparable in importance to Julius Caesar -- George Washington.

Except he played completely the wrong role.  I believe the prevailing Classical comparison there is Cincinnatus.

Quote:The first anti-colonial revolution creating a superpower from its inception?

The US was hardly a superpower from its inception.

Quote:Wage war against the United States and get mauled badly, at best. 

Uhh, where is this coming from?

Quote:This time if the USA gets involved in a war with Donald Trump as President, then we are likely to be mauled badly.

Is Trump going to be fighting personally?  Leading armies?   Rolleyes

Quote:I have seen suggestions that the USA is in roughly the same stage of history as the latter days of the Roman Republic... sure, we have no king, but the politicians are becoming increasingly ruthless.

I literally made that suggestion to you in this very thread, and others as well.  Also, read the highlighted section above again.  You do know what the word "Republic" means, don't you?

Honestly, this discussion board would be a lot more fun if it were little less filled with cranks.  Well, goes with the territory, I suppose...  Undecided
Reply
#73
After winning an initial court case against Trump's Muslim ban, ACLU national political director Faiz Shakir said yesterday, "I hope Trump enjoys losing. He’s going to lose so much we’re going to get sick and tired of his losing."
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#74
(01-20-2017, 11:18 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(12-14-2016, 08:35 PM)Odin Wrote:
(12-14-2016, 12:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have ancestors who may have been hiding something. Both sides of the family. Surnames include "Leonard" and "Gibson".

One of those genetic tests might show something inconsistent between me and my musical tastes.

What ancestry do you think they are hiding? Huh

African, perhaps. Not much. But if so, then the one-drop rule would redefine me.

1. Yup on 1 drop rule.
2. South or North Africa ?
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#75
(01-30-2017, 05:57 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: <big snip>
Honestly, this discussion board would be a lot more fun if it were little less filled with cranks.  Well, goes with the territory, I suppose...  Undecided

Sorry dude, I reckon you need to wait about 11 years +/- 2 years. 4T's are known for fucking with folks' minds.
I mean, just look what's going on top to bottom.  We have a Twitter addled POTUS all the way down to hormone addled college dudes Black Blocing  and uh.... for the ladies this:

[Image: woman-in-vagina-suit.jpg] Rolleyes

And in the SJW WTF mindfuck we have this .
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#76
Pussy Poncho?  Cool
Reply
#77
Speaking of racism, Slate has published an article which includes a characterization of Bannon as looking like a "drunken Irish savage".
Reply
#78
All the Trump staff and most people who voted for him, or are associated with him, look creepy, because, well, maybe they are creepy. With some notable exceptions like Ivanka, maybe. Bannon is like a cartoon character, he's so bad. The whole admin is an episode of The Twilight Zone. Or is that some creepy horror movie? They certainly are not wholly typical of white people, of course. Or Americans, or whoever. They are the creepy inhabitants of Trumpland.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#79
Well, I hope that I don't come off as a crank. Intensely partisan and opinionated -- OK. I know that.

There are no perfect parallels in history, and we have multiple cycles in operation.

Even the Vietcong got a bad mauling from the USA, even if their allies the North Vietnamese Army ultimately prevailed. .
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#80
(01-31-2017, 02:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Well, I hope that I don't come off as a crank.

Not to me.  Partisan enough that productive discussion is difficult, but not a crank.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Neil Howe: Where did Steve Bannon get his worldview? From my book. Dan '82 32 11,425 04-21-2017, 12:35 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Steve Bannon is obsessed with The Fourth Turning Dan '82 17 5,712 02-06-2017, 02:27 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)