History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[mandragon]

In fairness, the continent did also produce the Germanic “thing”, the tribal assembly that is the true father of all parliamentary government. It was in abandoning that so its kings could larp as Roman Emperors that the Germans started to go mad.

Indeed but the British got a heavy dose of the Germanic culture from the Angles and Saxons. So as you can see British culture is just better,and America took that and cranked it to 11. Then added west Africa for supieor music [Eagles Screeching]

 

[LordDemiurge]

the tribal assembly that is the true father of all parliamentary government.

I feel like some version of this always seems to exist in primitive societies.

I distinctly recall that a lot of tribal societies, whether it be African, American or Asian, tended to be headed by councils, with chiefs having to listen to the demands of those members or simply just popular demands if the population was small enough and less organized.

 

[Skallagrim]

Oh yes, we see the United States as a shining city on a hill. As something special born from all that came before us and yet distinctly our own melding Greek democracy and Roman Republicism with liberty and restrained government. That the Founders, rather than repeat the mistakes and follies of our European forebearers, deliberately sought to limit the power of the State and empower the individual.

With that in mind whatever merits the Universal Empire posses it does seem to run counter to what the Founders intended and their Republic experiment.

Well, yes-- the Universal Empire always, by definition, runs counter to whatever directly preceded it. ("Directly" meaning, here, "roughly the three centuries preceding its foundations".) Conversely, it does flow rather better with the entire civilisation's history as a whole.

Or, in other words: the future is normal, and so is the past-- it's the period c. 1800-2100 that's really fucking weird. (Same was true for the Hellenistic Period in Classical Antiquity, and the Warring States Period in China, and the Hyksos Period in Egypt, etc. etc. As such, we may surmise that this is par for the course.)

Now, this does not suggest that there are no grounds for American exceptionalism. There were also grounds for Roman exceptionalism. What I am saying is that being exceptional does not render one impervious to historical effect. In same ways, a nation that has a great and imperial destiny only really becomes itself when it becomes the Empire. When we think of Rome, in hindsight, we think more of the Empire than of the Republic. Even the view that most laymen have of the Republic is filtered through their underlying conceptions that actually apply to the Empire.

The Empire, even the Principate (which doggedly insisted that it was still the Republic, yes sir!), was not what the men who overthrew the Tanquinians had intended. But it was where their efforts ultimately led. I say, in that same vein, that what America will become (and in many ways already is becoming) is not what was intended by the men who overthrew the reign of George III over their lands.

But still, here we are.

You argue the Romanitas didn't die merely changed but taken to a far enough extent is that not the same thing merely expressed differently? Its like the adage about the trusty old ax which has had three new blades and two new handles where the accumulated changes have replaced the original ax with a facsimile.

That debate -- the ship of Theseus -- has come up several times in this thread. Even from the very start, I think. Definitive answers are hard to reach. I might ask whether the Roman kingdom under the Etruscan overlords was "Roman" as we understand it; and in the same way, whethere America was "American" as we understand it before 1776. And I might also ask whether Rome was still itself when Augustus was Princeps. That last one is the salient point to this specific discussion.

The Romans would tell you yes-- in retrospect. Yes, we are now and always have been this great people, this great city, possessed of this great destiny. The Romans who lived a century before the Republic would probably not recognise the Rome of the Punic Wars as being the same Rome they knew. And the Romans of the Punic Wars might not recognise the Rome of Hadrian as theirs. The same perspecives can easily be applied to an American context, and so the answer is that from the ground level, it's a matter of perspective.

But the history books will sketch the through-line. In all latter-day accounts, the Empire will be regarded as the culmination of all that came before. Not a betrayal, not a breach; but a fulfillment.

There might be a people who refer to themselves as "American" and who draw upon the Republic's legacy, as the Roman Empire drew upon their own Republic or how we in turn draw upon the legacy of Rome, but if there's no continuation of meaningful culture, values or institutions then in what sense are they my descendants? They might as well be aliens who set up shop in abandoned real-estate.

In this, I wouldn't go that far. Although in my previous examples, I pointed out that Romans in a given period wouldn't recognise Rome from a latter stage of history as being their Rome, they would still be able to recognise it as a changed/evolved form of it. There is a form of continuity.

After all: Washington and Jefferson and Franklin wouldn't recognise (as "theirs") the USA of 1900, either -- let alone the USA of today -- but that doesn't suggest that America ceased to be itself and that there has been a kind of breach at some point. WE are looking at an evolutionary process.

Wrong-headed, blinkered or just too proud I don't think I could be happy with that outcome. While I doubt to an outside observer it would matter, anymore than I truly care that much about the differences between the Roman Republic and the later Empire, but from my perspective there's little difference between the UE and just throwing in the towel to the Elites who want their own global empire.

That's the view also held by Cato, so it's not a strange sentiment. In fact, it has my distinct sympathy, as I have mentioned before. But an America that remains "the old republic" is purely a topic for allohistorical speculation. Another road was chosen, and we're many miles down that other road by now.

I do feel that it's important to note that the specific goals and ambition of the present elite cannot be equated to the nature of the Universal Empire. Rather: the Universal Empire will be born from the ashes of their immolation. It is, you could say, the sane alternative to their world-system.

Such opposition, in the fullness of time, may be futile. All things die after all and the irrevocable march of history is a cruel mistress. But we lose nothing from the attempt each time trying to postpone doomsday for yet another generation.

The Universal Empire isn't a thing of doom. Clinically viewed, it isn't good or bad. It just is. But its creation isn't the doom of America. Indeed, if you feel that there is a great breach between the ideals of the Founders and nature of the Empire, then I regret to inform you that we're already past that breach. The nature of America now -- continent-spanning, with the greatest and most fearsome armies and fleets ever beheld by man, and in command of a proto-imperial alliance system -- is far closer to the Universal Empire than it is to the Thirteen Colonies that fought for independence.

(The Rome of the Gracchi was also closer to the coming Empire than it was to the Little City-State That Could.)

 

[LordDemiurge]

is far closer to the Universal Empire

I can see materially, but I do wonder as to the quality of that empire given difference between the US and Rome.

I mean as much as I love the US, we are kind of softer compared to Rome. Barring the civil war we've never really been threatened or had to face a crisis to the same degree then when say...Hannibal was at Rome's doorstep. We've never really properly hardened ourselves from a true peer-to-peer fight. Even during WW2, there was never a time when the Japanese, Nazis or Soviet besieged New York or blitzed Washington DC.

The biggest issue for me is that it kind of shows in our track record for wars for the past half century. We're amazing at fighting battles, but continuously bungle actually finishing wars, and so many of our foreign policy decisions always seem to end in us shooting ourselves in the foot. The less said about the friends we try to make...the better.

We have more than Rome, but I really can't help but get the distinct feeling that the US struggles getting the bare minimum done with anything, even when it has far more. Especially in comparison to the Roman Republic. There are times I do worry that we may in fact be more like Carthage, albeit with the fortune of their not yet being any Rome in the world at the moment. All wealth, but simply too little institutional and cultural muscle to live up to the task.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

If the United States completes its Imperial transition, breaks and puts China, Russia and their malcontents under its yoke, then Pax Americana truly begins.

As master of the world and having monopoly on space travel, America is then free to explore, colonise and mine the solar system as she pleases. With no rivals at all (not even a Parthia equivalent, as there are no aliens in our neck of the woods) the American Empire could rule for thousands of years.

The biggest issue for me is that it kind of shows in our track record for wars for the past half century. We're amazing at fighting battles, but continuously bungle actually finishing wars, and so many of our foreign policy decisions always seem to end in us shooting ourselves in the foot. The less said about the friends we try to make...the better.

The ascension of an American Emperor and his dynasty would go a surprising way to fixing these errors. Indecisiveness, lack of political will and political bickering is not an issue for the Principate.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Well, yes-- the Universal Empire always, by definition, runs counter to whatever directly preceded it

Which by definition means it is pretty much incompatible with most flavors of what we might call the American Right. Ironically outside of some window dressing in terminology the UE would align closer to the American Left. A Neo-Feudal arrangement with a strong, central authority figure seeking to smooth disparate and disagreeing voices into a compliant homogeneous. Even the quasi state religion would likely be cool as long as it was their interpretation of Christianity that was dominant template.

So I can't agree that the UE is somehow incompatible with the Elites desires. In almost every way the institutions, the bones of the UE, is their wet dream. Which isn't to say the Elites will inherit this UE but much like I wouldn't readily recognize the Americans of this empire 2400 AD I wouldn't be able to distinguish their rulers from the Elites of our time.

But still, here we are.

Indeed, and I must say that in all other aspects I could ask for no finer companion to watch history unfold. Whatever my disagreement on what is or isn't "American" I appreciate your informative and thought provoking commenting in this thread.

Now, this does not suggest that there are no grounds for American exceptionalism. There were also grounds for Roman exceptionalism.

I would have to disagree. There were Romes before and they'll be Romes after. What it accomplished is largely only important, to us, because Europe grew in its shadow. Had Islam not went down their own slow suicide path and been more successful in Europe then Achaemenid's empire might be more center stage rather than our Hellenist centric viewpoint. And after the collapse Rome likely will be forgotten replaced by the Globalist Empire/ Proto-Imperial America as the legacy to be emulated and surpassed.

When I say America is exceptional I mean it is a glittering snowflake never to be repeated. That doesn't mean its immune to the natural laws of course but that I view what the Founders set out to accomplish as the best, brightest destiny Man could achieve. It is a biased view, I freely admit, but is mine none the less. If the age I live in is crazy, then I am crazy and sanity would be a prison.

And to that end I can not agree that America can only become itself by forsaking its birthright. What comes after may be great and wonderful and usher in a new golden age but I couldn't call it American and I can't feel anything for their accomplishments anymore than I truly feel anything for Rome's accomplishments. That they are, as you say elsewhere, something that "just is".

The Romans would tell you yes-- in retrospect.

Oh yes, I don't doubt they would but that's something of a trick answer through. Of course those who come after, needing a continuation and a sense of legitimacy, would say "yes" while obviously enjoying the benefit of history to smooth over any inconsistencies and selectively interpret data to justify that self-serving conclusion.

And I would agree that history books will sketch a through-line much as we typically think of the Roman Republic as merely the prelude to the Empire and not without reason. We are the inheritors of the legacy of the Roman Empire rather than, directly, the Republic so its only natural looking back we view it through that lens. That was continued over from the Republic is highlighted, what was discarded becoming less "Roman" as consequence.

I freely admit there are no easy or hard and fast answers on this. The very act of existence is change and I won't pretend its possible or even desirable to go for over 200 hundred years without being altered by that fact. But we do, I'll note , frequently draw the distinction between Rome the Republic and Rome the Empire even if, due to our inheritance from the latter, it colors the former. Clearly even from the distant observance of the far future that change was profound enough to be of note. A breach of what came before if you will.

America circa 1900's is a different beast, and not on whole for the better, than the American Washington or Jefferson knew but there was still a clear continuation of what came before even it was increasingly becoming warped. A neo-feudal society however is another thing entirely.

To my perspective that is a step too far. Not merely a distortion of the Founder's dream but , as you put it, a counter of all that had come before. If that is not a breach or betrayal to them I'm not sure what would be.

That's the view also held by Cato, so it's not a strange sentiment. In fact, it has my distinct sympathy, as I have mentioned before. But an America that remains "the old republic" is purely a topic for allohistorical speculation. Another road was chosen, and we're many miles down that other road by now.

Perhaps we are too many miles down that road but I see the attempt as worthwhile on its own merits. If we are to die I would rather die fighting even if or hell especially if I know the cause is hopeless. Like I said, for me there is no downside. Either I postpone the death of the Republic, in which case I win, or I don't which will happen anyway if I do nothing.

The Universal Empire isn't a thing of doom.

The Tunguska event was clearly not a thing of good or evil, like the UE it simply was, yet it would have spelt your doom had you encountered it. By the same token the cessation of what I view as my culture and people is certainly not cause for joy. I will grant you the UE isn't the instigator or even culprit of that demise but I can't view it as the bright hope spot either. Indeed I would much rather pray that you are wrong and that Britain becomes the nexus for the next UE or China.

Indeed, if you feel that there is a great breach between the ideals of the Founders and nature of the Empire, then I regret to inform you that we're already past that breach. The nature of America now -- continent-spanning, with the greatest and most fearsome armies and fleets ever beheld by man, and in command of a proto-imperial alliance system -- is far closer to the Universal Empire than it is to the Thirteen Colonies that fought for independence.

Oh I would agree with you and such concerns are hardly new dating back to at least the early 20th century if not earlier. But that is still under a bloated, moribund republic or at least the vestige carcass there of. There is still a President, "elected" by the people/ electoral college, still three branches of governments that, technically, still serve the same role they did at Founding. We can debate how much of this is just window dressing, and when precisely that occurred, but there is still connective tissue. A pretense of the Republic.

And while I broadly want to end "Forever Wars" and reduce America's foreign policy footprint I'm not opposed to great and fearsome armies and navies or necessarily entangling Alliances, provided they serve our actual interests and are to our benefit. I'm not even against the idea of a "Commonwealth" of the Anglosphere like Canada and the UK. That while the United States would be changed by these acquisitions there is a common enough cultural framework that would make the process less turbulent than trying to assimilate Western Europe with its diverse cultures, histories and languages.

My objection to the UE are largely 1.) feeling the government is too far removed and based around principals too alien to feel "American" to me and 2.) I can't see this "Universalism" as a net good but rather a dilution as everything and everyone is made to conform and homogenize.

Edit:
This is a separate and belated tangent which I admit may have been discussed more in depth elsewhere in this thread, I hardly doubt I'm the first to breach it, but considering how less than 2% of the US Population is needed to handily feed itself with less than 9% needed for its entire manufacturing and robotics starting to eat at service/menial jobs we may be passing beyond the point where Empires require vast populations to support it. Once the Left/Elites have moved past the need for vote farming and the teeming masses are just a drain of finances what prevents them from carrying out polices over the next few decades to reduce the US to, say, a quarter of its current population or otherwise manageable "serf" population.

And if so, how does that affect Caesar when he shows up? Would it still be Populism versus the Elites or would the fault lines shift to Elite vs other Elites say a schism of religious belief.

 

[Bacle]

I think there are cycles tied to civilization that are bigger than human factors, and have brought down many people, including Roman governments.

Look at large volcanoes in Indonesia and Iceland for the real culprits behind most empires falling and civilizations collapsing.

Krakatau's ancestors have fucked humanity several times in recorded history, we just didn't realize it till Greenland and Antarctic ice cores were readable, as well as had sonar and radio-isotope dating.

Then there's Tambora, Laki, Santorini, and the multiple volcanoes in S. America which wiped out the Meso-American cultures with frightening regularity and can be tied to abnormally cold years and famines in the Old World.

Add in the odd meteor/comet impact/airburst, and you get things like the Biblical/Gilgamesh-ian flood, and the blasting of Sodom and Gammorah and maybe the Younger Dryas wiping out a proto-bronze age civilization.

Then there was the landslide off Norway that flooded Doggerland and created the English Channel with the mega-tusnami that cut through the chalk that makes up the Cliffs of Dover and part of the French coast.

Most of the time when any civilization dramatically collapses, it's tied to either war, or massive environmental disruption from a Krakatau or worse level of eruption.

Java and Sumatra use to be one island, even within the oral histories of Indonesian kings, till one of Krakatau's ancestors went up so massively it created the Sunda Strait.

 

[Aldarion]

Just to expand a little bit more on my musings of "American Exceptionalism", American culture is derived from British culture who in turn were always somewhat "apart" from the culture of Mainland Europe. Rome never fully conquered the native Britons who then mixed with Anglo-Saxons and then Norman Conquers down through the centuries comingling these disparate cultures in relative isolation and going down, I feel, a unique evolution.

I don't think it was random chance that a little island nation not really on the hub of any great, natural trade route kickstarted the industrial revolution anymore than I think it was that their heirs tamed a continent, usurped them as the workshop of the world and lead the way in innovation. Rather it was something unique to British High Culture.

And I imagine that same culture is why when the principals of the Enlightenment were applied and the old traditions were knocked aside it produced American Revolutionary war, the articles of Confederation, George Washington and the United States while on the Continent produced the French revolution, the Reign of Terror, Napoleon and his wars.

In fairness, the continent did also produce the Germanic “thing”, the tribal assembly that is the true father of all parliamentary government. It was in abandoning that so its kings could larp as Roman Emperors that the Germans started to go mad.

This. Issue with the "continent" I think is not so much that Anglo-Saxons had unique culture, but that Britain was less influenced by the Roman Empire.

Romans ended up worshipping Emperors as Gods. So on the continent, there was always this tendency towards absolutism - be it monarchical absolutism or democratic absolutism - which then led to genocides and stuff. Britain, being on the periphery of the Empire, was rather spared from this.

Though I have to state here that Hungary and Croatia also had extensive decentralization and democratic tendencies... until we got integrated into Germanic sphere. That ended up squashing any of it - Matthias Corvinus began introducing absolutism and then Habsburgs continued.

If the United States completes its Imperial transition, breaks and puts China, Russia and their malcontents under its yoke, then Pax Americana truly begins.

As master of the world and having monopoly on space travel, America is then free to explore, colonise and mine the solar system as she pleases. With no rivals at all (not even a Parthia equivalent, as there are no aliens in our neck of the woods) the American Empire could rule for thousands of years.


The ascension of an American Emperor and his dynasty would go a surprising way to fixing these errors. Indecisiveness, lack of political will and political bickering is not an issue for the Principate.

Not a chance.

United States, and the entire Western civilization, are on a downswing. Decay begins when culture starts believing itself "superior" or "universal", and with the West, this has began to happen in 18th century or so, and went into full insanity after World War II with "human rights" and so on.

 

[Poe]

Decay begins when culture starts believing itself "superior" or "universal"

This is not a statement backed up by historical fact. The Romans and Americans became great civilizations way after they had a culture of believing themselves superior. This applies to most great powers. The Persians lasted centuries after thinking themselves universal, the Chinese lasted millenia after. The west being on a downswing is not objective fact but a prediction, the US is so far ahead, and it's geography so favorable, that all it needs is a serious reform movement to place it back on a sane footing and the rest of the world doesn't have a chance at competing. Every problem the west has our rivals have 10x over, people itt want what you say to be true because crazy leftists have hijacked our nations. But it's cope and little more.

We are going to have to actually boot these crazies out and fix our nations, our geopolitical rivals are too retarded to do it for us.

 

[Aldarion]

This is not a statement backed up by historical fact. The Romans and Americans became great civilizations way after they had a culture of believing themselves superior. This applies to most great powers. The Persians lasted centuries after thinking themselves universal, the Chinese lasted millenia after. The west being on a downswing is not objective fact but a prediction, the US is so far ahead, and it's geography so favorable, that all it needs is a serious reform movement to place it back on a sane footing and the rest of the world doesn't have a chance at competing. Every problem the west has our rivals have 10x over, people itt want what you say to be true because crazy leftists have hijacked our nations. But it's cope and little more.

We are going to have to actually boot these crazies out and fix our nations, our geopolitical rivals are too retarded to do it for us.

Uh, no? Romans, when they were on the upswing, actually admired Greek culture... until they absorbed it. They may have believed themselves superior, but they did not believe their culture was superior, especially not to the point of expecting their enemies will simply accept their culture, be subverted by it and stop being their enemies the way Western elites (and many in the West in general) believe that. If it happened, OK, everybody happy. But if it didn't... let's just say that Romans didn't give second chances.

Right now, geography is the only thing US have going for them. Yes, it does allow for recovery... but even if it happens it will not be an easy road. And even if it does happen, chances are US are going to be left basically alone... just take a look at what is going on in Europe.

 

[Poe]

Uh, no? Romans, when they were on the upswing, actually admired Greek culture... until they absorbed it. They may have believed themselves superior, but they did not believe their culture was superior

By this logic no culture has ever felt itself superior because every culture has admired some others. The Romans definitely felt they were superior to the greeks, as you hint at its attested in their writing after absorbing them.

They may have believed themselves superior, but they did not believe their culture was superior, especially not to the point of expecting their enemies will simply accept their culture, be subverted by it and stop being their enemies the way Western elites (and many in the West in general) believe that. If it happened, OK, everybody happy. But if it didn't... let's just say that Romans didn't give second chances.

Yes they believed themselves superior. What I said lmao. The rest of this is unrelated to my comment

Right now, geography is the only thing US have going for them. Yes, it does allow for recovery... but even if it happens it will not be an easy road. And even if it does happen, chances are US are going to be left basically alone... just take a look at what is going on in Europe.

Geography, resources, military might, influence and intellectual property are among the many things America towers over the rest of the world in. Geography being "the only thing" is quite hilarious since it's the only thing that matters. You're right about Europe but even they could fix things rapidly if they actually wanted to and the US allowed them. A sane US fixing itself would result in Europe doing the same since Europes entire political apparatus has its strings pulled by the US.

 

[LordDemiurge]

breaks and puts China, Russia and their malcontents under its yoke,

Russia is a stillborn and sickly empire, so that I can see.

China is a colossal and dense civilization. China has been conquered by foreigners before, ruling China almost always seems to have a tendency to turn you Chinese.

While they have their own illnesses and maladies to reckon with, look at the progress they made in 80 years. They spiderwebbed their country in bullet trains in the time it took for the Californian project to quickly become a money sinkhole.

Hell look at California. If a nation only had California as a territory, it would have enough arable land and resources to dominate the world.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Thinking on it, the UE is supposed to arise from America as a consequence of the showdown between our Elites and the populist masses of which the MAGA movement is seemingly a part of the latter or possibly a "Proto-Populares" that will evolve into the Populares in time. Through, at least to my eyes, that seems counter-intuitive since the populism of the movement is diametrically opposed to the underpinnings of the creation of an entity like the UE. A movement based around "America First", making Nato pay its own share and opposing Globalist wars seems unlikely to suddenly embrace the concept of "America" as a proposition nation. More than anything, I would say the rise of populism in our era is about this question of identity. What does it mean to be "French" or "American" or "British" with our Elites proclaiming each of these are interchangeable or "Universal", that to be one is merely a question of citizenship, with the populists increasingly shouting back that no that these things have their own inherent values.

This obviously isn't without any precedent, earlier in the thread it was mentioned the Roman Republic had started pushing back against Hellenism and the perceived threat it was to the Roman identity and yet they went on to be happy Imperialists through to my knowledge, and I'm happy to be corrected on the matter, that issue was more of an intellectual matter. Romans assimilating Greek culture and ideas rather than Greeks being imported as unassimulated masses to rape Roman wives and live off Roman largess or a cheap, uneducated labor force to artificially depress wages for the Roman middle class. Which could have lead to the question of identity being a trivial issue compared to the central one of our age.

So how apt an analogue anti-Hellenism is to anti-globalism, and thus how likely a movement defined by its fierce Nationalist tendencies will do a 180 towards a more globalist mindset, is more up in the air at least to my eyes. Not impossible vis-a-vis the American population as a whole, 80 years is a loooong time for new events on the ground and new philosophies, but these Populares will have sprung from traditions and beliefs as different to the current MAGA movement as the Optimates are to them.

Essentially jettisoning all the "Americanisms" of their traditions in favor of something new and foreign at best or inherited from the Optimates at worst who, for the better part of a century if not more, have tried to forge an Empire and perceive the world as Americans in waiting.

In contrast I can't help but feel that rather than European High Culture, an American empire or "empire" would more closely mirror Great Britain. A monarch isn't out of the question through in keeping with centuries of both American and English cultural traditions I'd imagine it would be more of the parliament variety than European. In running counter to the prevailing views I'd wager this Empire, being born in essence from the ashes of a revolt against Globalism, will be more Nationalistic then not. I've already mentioned America forming a Commonwealth with other Anglo nations who share their High Culture and I think that's the more likely outcome with the American Empire sweeping around the World Island with its myriad of cultures, languages and religions.

Far better to let them play out the "Great Game", encourage it even, while sitting safely out of the fray as one would-be Charlemagne wrecks his neighbor's infrastructure in order to subdue them. All while the American Empire profits selling munitions and supplies to those same neighbors to resist and turn around and inflict the same destruction back upon the Charlemagne.

All backed up by a peer-less Navy befitting Britain and the US and enough nukes to make invasion of any part of Pax Americana unthinkable and make any market the American Empire desires open to them. A mix of Fortress America with the business of the United States is business.

 

[Bassoe]

Thinking on it, the UE is supposed to arise from America as a consequence of the showdown between our Elites and the populist masses of which the MAGA movement is seemingly a part of the latter or possibly a "Proto-Populares" that will evolve into the Populares in time. Through, at least to my eyes, that seems counter-intuitive since the populism of the movement is diametrically opposed to the underpinnings of the creation of an entity like the UE. A movement based around "America First", making Nato pay its own share and opposing Globalist wars seems unlikely to suddenly embrace the concept of "America" as a proposition nation. More than anything, I would say the rise of populism in our era is about this question of identity. What does it mean to be "French" or "American" or "British" with our Elites proclaiming each of these are interchangeable or "Universal", that to be one is merely a question of citizenship, with the populists increasingly shouting back that no that these things have their own inherent values.

This obviously isn't without any precedent, earlier in the thread it was mentioned the Roman Republic had started pushing back against Hellenism and the perceived threat it was to the Roman identity and yet they went on to be happy Imperialists through to my knowledge, and I'm happy to be corrected on the matter, that issue was more of an intellectual matter. Romans assimilating Greek culture and ideas rather than Greeks being imported as unassimulated masses to rape Roman wives and live off Roman largess or a cheap, uneducated labor force to artificially depress wages for the Roman middle class. Which could have lead to the question of identity being a trivial issue compared to the central one of our age.

So how apt an analogue anti-Hellenism is to anti-globalism, and thus how likely a movement defined by its fierce Nationalist tendencies will do a 180 towards a more globalist mindset, is more up in the air at least to my eyes. Not impossible vis-a-vis the American population as a whole, 80 years is a loooong time for new events on the ground and new philosophies, but these Populares will have sprung from traditions and beliefs as different to the current MAGA movement as the Optimates are to them.

Essentially jettisoning all the "Americanisms" of their traditions in favor of something new and foreign at best or inherited from the Optimates at worst who, for the better part of a century if not more, have tried to forge an Empire and perceive the world as Americans in waiting.

In contrast I can't help but feel that rather than European High Culture, an American empire or "empire" would more closely mirror Great Britain. A monarch isn't out of the question through in keeping with centuries of both American and English cultural traditions I'd imagine it would be more of the parliament variety than European. In running counter to the prevailing views I'd wager this Empire, being born in essence from the ashes of a revolt against Globalism, will be more Nationalistic then not. I've already mentioned America forming a Commonwealth with other Anglo nations who share their High Culture and I think that's the more likely outcome with the American Empire sweeping around the World Island with its myriad of cultures, languages and religions.

Far better to let them play out the "Great Game", encourage it even, while sitting safely out of the fray as one would-be Charlemagne wrecks his neighbor's infrastructure in order to subdue them. All while the American Empire profits selling munitions and supplies to those same neighbors to resist and turn around and inflict the same destruction back upon the Charlemagne.

All backed up by a peer-less Navy befitting Britain and the US and enough nukes to make invasion of any part of Pax Americana unthinkable and make any market the American Empire desires open to them. A mix of Fortress America with the business of the United States is business.

I strongly recommend reading Fitzpatrick's War by Theodore Judson, it's basically this train of thought as a novel.

Book Review: “Fitzpatrick’s War” by Theodore Judson

This is a science-fiction novel primarily set in the 25th century. It is framed as the memoir of Sir Robert Mayfair Bruce, a soldier in the inner circle of Isaac Prophet Fitzpatrick, a charismatic …

ruinedchapel.com

The modern neoliberal globalist American Empire has fallen. The Confederacy of the Yukon, essentially the reactionary traditionalist model discussed here has gathered up the ashes, reasserted control of the North American continent and established an economic pseudo-empire of trade.

Cue the titular Fitzpatrick, an extremely ambitious Consul who wants to transform the Yukon into a true empire through foreign wars of conquest and centralize authority under himself as its first emperor.

And the whole reason for Fitzpatrick's rise and fall was his collaboration with the lowborn peasantry of the empire and latter lack thereof. At first, he'd only managed to seize the throne by having some of the only genuinely loyal functionaries and praetorian guards in the Yukon, which he'd gotten by elevating the politically unconnected rather than the nepo babies of his fellow aristocrats, ensuring that they knew they'd never have gotten to their current positions of authority without his help. And later, his empire fell when mass conscription into his wars and zero-sum economic competition with the "free" loot demanded as tribute from conquered enemies disillusioning his former lower-class allies into betraying him.

Also there's a general making a "motivating" speech to an army of peasant levies essentially amounting to "if we don't win this war and obliterate our enemies now while we have the upper hand, their descendants will hold what we've already done as blood libel against your descendants" which has got to be the most depressingly ironic twist outcome of modern idpol thinking.

 

[Cherico]

I strongly recommend reading Fitzpatrick's War by Theodore Judson, it's basically this train of thought as a novel.

Book Review: “Fitzpatrick’s War” by Theodore Judson

This is a science-fiction novel primarily set in the 25th century. It is framed as the memoir of Sir Robert Mayfair Bruce, a soldier in the inner circle of Isaac Prophet Fitzpatrick, a charismatic …

ruinedchapel.com

The modern neoliberal globalist American Empire has fallen. The Confederacy of the Yukon, essentially the reactionary traditionalist model discussed here has gathered up the ashes, reasserted control of the North American continent and established an economic pseudo-empire of trade.

Cue the titular Fitzpatrick, an extremely ambitious Consul who wants to transform the Yukon into a true empire through foreign wars of conquest and centralize authority under himself as its first emperor.

And the whole reason for Fitzpatrick's rise and fall was his collaboration with the lowborn peasantry of the empire and latter lack thereof. At first, he'd only managed to seize the throne by having some of the only genuinely loyal functionaries and praetorian guards in the Yukon, which he'd gotten by elevating the politically unconnected rather than the nepo babies of his fellow aristocrats, ensuring that they knew they'd never have gotten to their current positions of authority without his help. And later, his empire fell when mass conscription into his wars and zero-sum economic competition with the "free" loot demanded as tribute from conquered enemies disillusioning his former lower-class allies into betraying him.

Also there's a general making a "motivating" speech to an army of peasant levies essentially amounting to "if we don't win this war and obliterate our enemies now while we have the upper hand, their descendants will hold what we've already done as blood libel against your descendants" which has got to be the most depressingly ironic twist outcome of modern idpol thinking.

Its depressing and likely very likely.

It is after all the the logical reaction to all of this.

 

[ATP]

Its depressing and likely very likely.

It is after all the the logical reaction to all of this.

Depressing? rather optymist - there are no green lgbt gulags there,or even mini-caliphates.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

So, whenever the war in Ukraine ends, and Putin’s regime implodes after one of the worst military humiliations Russia has ever suffered, what becomes of “the Russias” so to speak?

A point I made in another thread was that, if this last vestige of the Soviet Union could topple, the Russians would need about a hundred years to culturally rediscover themselves. If they got that hundred years, probably in a Balkanised former Russian Empire, one ponders what comes out the other side in the mid to late 22nd century.

Some on here would say, not without reason, that the American Empire would absorb the more western parts of Old Russia into its sphere of influence. I’m not entirely sure about that, but at the least the non-western parts of Russia as like wouldn’t think too highly of outsiders butting their heads in.

 

[Cherico]

So, whenever the war in Ukraine ends, and Putin’s regime implodes after one of the worst military humiliations Russia has ever suffered, what becomes of “the Russias” so to speak?

A point I made in another thread was that, if this last vestige of the Soviet Union could topple, the Russians would need about a hundred years to culturally rediscover themselves. If they got that hundred years, probably in a Balkanised former Russian Empire, one ponders what comes out the other side in the mid to late 22nd century.

Some on here would say, not without reason, that the American Empire would absorb the more western parts of Old Russia into its sphere of influence. I’m not entirely sure about that, but at the least the non-western parts of Russia as like wouldn’t think too highly of outsiders butting their heads in.

for the non western parts?

Chinese Vassals at least until china goes into civil war, and after that still chinese vassals.

 

[Poe]

So, whenever the war in Ukraine ends, and Putin’s regime implodes after one of the worst military humiliations Russia has ever suffered, what becomes of “the Russias” so to speak?

Why are we assuming any of this and what does this have to do with cyclical history?

 

[Skallagrim]

So, whenever the war in Ukraine ends, and Putin’s regime implodes after one of the worst military humiliations Russia has ever suffered, what becomes of “the Russias” so to speak?

A point I made in another thread was that, if this last vestige of the Soviet Union could topple, the Russians would need about a hundred years to culturally rediscover themselves. If they got that hundred years, probably in a Balkanised former Russian Empire, one ponders what comes out the other side in the mid to late 22nd century.

Some on here would say, not without reason, that the American Empire would absorb the more western parts of Old Russia into its sphere of influence. I’m not entirely sure about that, but at the least the non-western parts of Russia as like wouldn’t think too highly of outsiders butting their heads in.

for the non western parts?

Chinese Vassals at least until china goes into civil war, and after that still chinese vassals.

Why are we assuming any of this and what does this have to do with cyclical history?

To begin with addressing the last question: in the scope of macrohistory, the tentative (in some cases, not-so-tentative) identification of Russia is that it is a failed civilisation, of sorts. I have advocated this thesis myself, although I do put some caveats in place regarding some details.

As discussed a few pages back, the gist of it is that Russia -- or rather: Kievan Rus' or its prospective successor(s) -- had the evident potential to become the nexus of an inchoate Orthodox High Culture. Vladimir the Great, in this context, may be viewed as the great founder-king who put the aspirational ideal in place. Especially considering the decline (and then-upcoming demise) of the Eastern Roman Empire, these aspirations in such a direction had clear promise.

The trajectory of this emergent civilisation, however, was disturbed by the Mongol invasions, and most especially by the boyarism of the Golden Horde (which soon descended into despotic thuggery without the barest hints of nuance). From this mess, Mucovy bubbled to the top as the ultimate claimant to hegemony within the Russian lands. Muscovy had been a collaborator of the Mongols, and had in fact adopted the tactics and motives of boyarism. The legacy of thuggish despotism was thus not reduced to an unpleasant interval, but was institutionalised by a subsequent native regime.

Muscovy quarreled with the other Russian states (most of which had less meat-brained inclinations), and by brute force defeated them. (Their treatment of Novgorod in particular is quite revealing, and hints at the future history of Russia -- and its treatment of all neighbours -- all the way through the present.)

The princes of Muscovy did indeed make themselves Tsars of all Russia, and pretended to the hegemony of an Orthodox world-system, but they failed in giving a meaningful shape to it. It remained always disjointed. This to such an extent that Peter the Great (realising the state of his empire) attempted to integrate Russia (and thus implicitly all Orthodoxy) into the Western Christian world, thus hoping to produce a larger, joint world-system encompassing all meaningful parts of Christendom. A world-system in which he hoped Russia could play a major role. (Essentially, he wanted Russia to pull off something like the Meiji Restoration; learning from the West and lifting itself up to become a power of greater consequence in the wider world.)

Peter's attempts were only partially successful, and many were reversed later. Especially in the intellectual sphere, there was a sort of knee-jerk reaction by the Russians. Rather than admitting they were hardly as refined as the West, they began to decry the West, and to revel in their own boorishness, which they presented as "Orthodox purity". That sentiment, I hardly need to explain, still lives in Russia now. Indeed, it is the only sort of national sentiment they have left. And something only held together by hatred and envy produced by an inferiority complex never has a glorious future ahead of it.

The reason why things are now so very bad as they have become -- much worse than it ever was even under the Muscovite despots, those Romanov Tsars -- is that the Russians reacted to their internal problems (and their external military defeat) by bringing into power the worst socio-political system to have been devised in human history: communism. No greater mistake could have been made. As I've outlined above, they already faced major issues, but before the Great War and its aftermath, there was a future. Russia was boorish and thuggish, and drenched in despotism, but those things don't necessarily stand in the way of geo-political success. Russia was in the middle of a demographic boom, and it was catching up technologically.

There was, prior to the war, still a possibility for the consummation of the Orthodox civilisation. It would have been a far less refined and elegant version of the idea than might have been manifested by better-suited helmsmen, in the absence of a Mongol yoke... but still. There was a way.

And then, communism. The USSR. The brute amongst brutes. The meat-brain amongst meat-brains. Communism killed Russia. Its demographics collapsed. Its economy became a joke. In vainly trying to contend for world-hegemony against the West, the USSR burned into self up from the inside out. What we see now, what Putin governs, is the husk of a culture that was already mangled centuries ago, and has been brutally gang-raped and immolated since. It is a blackened shell, no longer suitable for restoration. Fit only to be torn down so that the land may be re-used for new development.

In practice, this means that it matters not one iota how things play out in Ukraine. Even years before, I noted that Russia came dangerously close to collapse in the '90s, and that Putin's strongman rule had in fact postponed that. Postponed... but not averted. My prediction has been, for quite some time, that Russia will fall apart not too long after Putin croaks or is removed. Recent events have only strengthened my conviction in this regard, and in fact have raised the distinct possibility that Putin himself will cause the bloody anarchy that he had himself postponed to begin with.

The war in Ukraine has become a boondoggle. Even if Russia "wins", in that it keeps everything it now holds... the war has already cost more than they can bear. The conquered land is ruined, and getting profit from it will take longer than Putin has. This foolish war has already driven the last few nails into the coffin of Russia. If Putin "wins", he can stay for a bit longer, overseeing an economically and demographically blasted country, and when he dies, it'll fall into anarchy. And if he loses, if he's driven out of any major part of the conquered lands... then he gets a bullet, or a noose, or some poison... and Russia falls into violent anarchy just a bit sooner. Either way, the fundamental outcome is the same.

China is already waiting to benefit from this. (Here we get to the other posts I've quoted.) For years now -- in fact, decades -- China has built up a demographic strategy in the Russian Far East. Their goal is evident to all. Once Russia goes down, China marches into to bring order and security. And to get as many natural resources under their control as they can. At the same time, if the West if half-way sane, we can expand our influence into Western Russia. Imagine denazification and Marshall Aid, writ large. In truth, the culmination of what Peter the Great imagined, albeit on terms rather less favourable to truncated Russia. The inclusion of the Russian heartlands into the West-- both territorially and culturally. Because they are now a ruined Fellachenkultur, they can, must and will be given a new cultural frame-work: a Western one. From a Western perspective, rump-Russia will be "made normal" at last.

The only question is where the border will be, between the Western world-system and the Chinese world-system. It could be the Urals; it could be a point further East if we are ambitious; and it could be a point further West if we are imbeciles and let China have it all.