History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Arch Dornan]

Who knows?

All that debt I keep hearing keeps piling up. I just don't know if it's the fabled birth rate crash that causes it.

 

[Megadeath]

It is cyclic, because same forces guide events through the entire history. "History likes to rhyme" is merely an expression which acknowledges that: events will never repeat the same, but the themes always are the same.

Except that's not really true. Human nature remains the same, but the environment those people operate in is so vastly different that pretending we can draw exact parallels to past events (I mean, seriously, there's people saying Individual A of modernity is person Z from antiquity, and how we'll soon have person's X & Y, and specific events will happen, in exactly this order, in this time frame.) well it's all quite ludicrous. It reminds me of nothing so much as it does the End of Days "Christians" who spend all their days trying to shoehorn current affairs to fit bizarre interpretations of Revelation.

Now, for sure there's issues that echo down through the ages. There are rough similarities between similar types of government, and some issues seem endemic of the human condition. Anyone pretending that they can predict the future by slotting current affairs into some kind of madlibs of history is just a scared child trying to make sense of a world that confuses them.

The differences in pretty much everything preclude events being "cyclic" as some have posited. Specifically, the differences in base level of education, speed and reach of communication, globalised interconnectedness and even our extended lifespan, all have profound effect on social direction and pull us in dramatically different directions than our ancestors chose.

Hell, if you literally went and plucked the historic figures from their timeline and inserted them into their supposed roles nowadays (Whilst magically handwaving culture shock!) they still probably wouldn't make the exact same choices, since they'd have newer tools and better options with them.

 

[Cherico]

All that debt I keep hearing keeps piling up. I just don't know if it's the fabled birth rate crash that causes it.

In one year the boomers start retiring in mass, and most of the world does not have a replacement generation. Structuarally speaking we are in for a global credit crunch. Any one who cant make it in a era of cheap credit their screwed when money actually costs some thing again.

 

[Aldarion]

Except that's not really true. Human nature remains the same, but the environment those people operate in is so vastly different that pretending we can draw exact parallels to past events (I mean, seriously, there's people saying Individual A of modernity is person Z from antiquity, and how we'll soon have person's X & Y, and specific events will happen, in exactly this order, in this time frame.) well it's all quite ludicrous. It reminds me of nothing so much as it does the End of Days "Christians" who spend all their days trying to shoehorn current affairs to fit bizarre interpretations of Revelation.

Now, for sure there's issues that echo down through the ages. There are rough similarities between similar types of government, and some issues seem endemic of the human condition. Anyone pretending that they can predict the future by slotting current affairs into some kind of madlibs of history is just a scared child trying to make sense of a world that confuses them.

The differences in pretty much everything preclude events being "cyclic" as some have posited. Specifically, the differences in base level of education, speed and reach of communication, globalised interconnectedness and even our extended lifespan, all have profound effect on social direction and pull us in dramatically different directions than our ancestors chose.

Hell, if you literally went and plucked the historic figures from their timeline and inserted them into their supposed roles nowadays (Whilst magically handwaving culture shock!) they still probably wouldn't make the exact same choices, since they'd have newer tools and better options with them.

True to an extent. But some things never change: there is no way to prevent a decline of a civilization, for example, no matter what tools you have, because everything that is living has to die. And so on.

 

[Cherico]

True to an extent. But some things never change: there is no way to prevent a decline of a civilization, for example, no matter what tools you have, because everything that is living has to die. And so on.

dont be angry that it ended be glad it happened.

 

[stevep]

I've read up on Tiberius Grachi, he actually lines up pretty well with Trump.

A guy who is a massive asshole with a lack of decorum but a rock solid point, and both come at roughly the same time in the republics history.

The roman republic beat their rivial carthrage, there was a price for that victory. The small citizen soligers ended up losing their farms, and land because they were too busy fighting wars to main tain things. The wealthy patritian classes were using more and more of the public lands to make themselves wealthy.

The first Grachi brother came up with a solution take the public lands and restore the lively hoods of the men who fought for the republic. This however ran against the interests of urban elites and they ended up going too far and killing Tibereus in retrospect they should have compromised with him and his movement. But they quite simply didn't respect him as a person or the people he represented. The escalating conflict would in time destroy the republic.


Likewise in our own Era the American republic defeated the soviet union, we did this by essentally bribing every one to be on our side. We secured the world sea lanes and let anyone trade with any one else in the net work, we even went as far as to protect our enemies shipping. We opened up our markets to the world, and in return our allies had to fight the cold war our way. One of the prices of this deal is that we could not refuse battle anywhere so korea, vietnam little conflicts all over the globe. We spent blood and treasure every where and we won.

So what america got in return for this was an alliance against the soviet union and access to energy.

Then the soviet union fell, we continued to protect the worlds sealanes, continued to prop up internation trade, as our own industrial sector withered away as communities died, and the industrial core of america became the rust belt. Then 9-11 happened and many of our allies refused to fight, refused to help us. China a country that prospered greatly because of our help shot down one of our planes, some thing that pissed us of. Europe a place we helped rebuild at great expense created an alternate currency in an attempt to demolish our position as the global reserve currency Which pissed us off.

The war on terror saw a lot of our so called allies either refuse or unable to help us, and yeah they have their reasons but all of that leaves an incredibly sour taste in some ones mouth. And the people who fought these wars so that Europe, east asia and much of the world could keep the lights on. The people who watched their home town economies die got pretty angry.

George Dubya bush one of the biggest idiots we ever had left the republican party in total ruin, the party refused to do any soul searching leaving it wide open for any one to rebuild it on a fundamental level.

Thats where trump comes in.

He looked at these people these deplorables and told them he would bring back jobs, and Arron he did, under Trump we had one of the biggest reindustrializations in american history. He said why keep an alliance network going that doesnt benifit us why secure trade for allies who dont help us? What is in it for us.


A lot of companies make a lot of money off of the international system a lot of them are built upon it I mean its lasted 70 years. But its all artificial, it only exists as long as a hedgemon maintains it and a lot of people do not want to put in the blood and treasure anymore. These are the urban elites and they relie on this system and it is dying.


In an ideal world urban elites would sit down with the populists with the american people and have an honest conversation with the american people. They would work out a compromise where the american people are compensated for their role in maintaining international trade and greater prosperity.

But there is one glaring problem.

The urban elites have an ego problem, they have embraced a social justice cult and it is a cult Aron, they don't see these people as human beings. They dont think they should have to compromise they think that their smarter and more capable then they really are, and their power base is crumbling from decades of mismanagement and their claims of expertize are getting more and more suspect.

Biden is currently working to grab as much establishment power as possible to ward off the envitable democrat civil war, any populists of the left wing stripe will be forced to confirm or be purged.

Meanwhile the republican base is utterlly pissed and the ongoing purge of establishment republicans who havent gotten the message will accelerate.

The political realinment is here, establishment against populists and who are the populists? Every one who is sick of an increasingly out of touch, authoritatian political establishment.

You will get purged some day Arron Fox, your not their people your not capable of touting their party line not when it gets more and more authoritarian and takes more and more.

When that day comes we will be waiting for you.

If you ask I have a hug ready.

The problem with that comparison is that Trump doesn't have a point, other than his ego. He talked about the plight of a lot of people affected by the political and economic changes that started with Reagan's 8 years but made clear he didn't give a damn by the fact his primarily economic change was big tax cuts for his fellow multi-millionaires.

As such yes the US does need to reform but its basically the Republicans, as the party of the rich establishment that had blocked that idea. Attempts to protect those same poorer people from the excesses of the rich is continually countered by them because its the rich that pays for the party. The same problem we have in my country [the UK] with the Tories since 1979.

Very true there are some idiots and extremists on the Democrat side but their still largely a small minority as compared to being far, far more powerful in the Republicans.

 

[Skallagrim]

I'd like to ask another round of questions—the first being how much power will likely be vested in the executive branch. I recall you stating that in the aggregate, the Principate will have minimal interest in governing every last aspect of private life, being mostly occupied with pontificating about "traditional Christian values" and fielding a first-rate military. Especially after it finishes rebuilding the lands that it claims as its own, after which they'd be better positioned to downsize their armed presence (though whether the bureaucracy will steadily grow in other ways to offset that rollback, I don't know).

That said, I also think it'd be instructive to draw a distinction between the size of government and how much it intervenes in the everyday lives of its citizens, and to what degree executive power is vested in the head-of-state and/or some oligarchic force at the top. As I understand it, the Roman emperors' general approach trended towards the autocratic and absolute. While some may have had more respect for the Senate and other governing bodies—Trajan, I believe, kept his word after promising not to execute a single senator—they ultimately had the final say over policy. Which, in the case of sadistic nutcases like Caligula, might not have been the best thing. One might argue that what I'm concerned about is already happening during America's republican phase—with the POTUS having amassed more and more executive power over the years—but that still doesn't refute my point here. As such, I fear that any future "Caligula", "Nero", or "Caracalla" who becomes Emperor of the West will have free reign to tyrannize with few checks and balances to stop them. While, at the same time, not giving two shits about regulating your gambling habits or the details of how your chair is designed (as is true in today's democracies, as well as its dictatorships).

Regarding this point, I can note that every Universal Empire in history has -- in its initial period -- been very unobtrusive for the populace. Yes, the Emperor can usually do whatever he likes. What he likes is typically harmless. In any event, barely anyone ever sees him anyway. Occasionally, there are problems of a serious nature (uprisings, court conspiracies) that result in bloodshed. This has always been the case, and an uprising somewhere in the Empire will not affect your daily life more than the Iraq War does. Probably less. Meanwhile, issues at court are handled at court. (For instance, who in China even heard about it when the Son of Heaven had a bunch of overly ambitious court eunuchs strangled?)

It might be observed that the 'Principate' is so well-functioning that it continues operating smoothly even when the Emperor is insane. And, yes, that happens on occasion. Of course, Nero wasn't the monster he was later painted to be (more of an embarassing loon, really). Some goes for Heliogabalus. Caracalla, Caligula and Commodus really were unpleasant. But did this affect the Empire? Not all that much.

More broadly, I wonder if it’s possible that today’s reigning ideologies would basically be remembered as disparate offshoots of a shared premise—that is, a belief in a utopian “end stage” of history that can be reached via this or that ideology? Yes, I remember you referencing Mohism and how future generations might be similarly baffled when told that people actually took the movements of Modernity seriously. I also imagine that it’s possible that communism, fascism, and liberal democracy are more or less dismissed as products of delusional Whiggish aspirations towards some final ideal that didn’t pan out as planned—despite centuries of promises to the contrary. At that point, perhaps only scholars and dedicated students would give a damn about the distinctions between them, with everyone else blinking in confusion before moving on with their day. They’d also be baffled at how even the less ideological cohorts of Modernity still clung to a notion of continuous progress, with an implicit expectation that the world of 2265 would resemble Star Trek more than Dune. Re-watching archived footage of the former would be a perpetual source of bemusement for denizens of the twenty-second century, I’d think. Whereas studying the latter, while it's still fictional, might convince them that Frank Herbert was on the right track after all.

Yes, I consider this a very realistic view. "Modern" thinking takes many forms, but they do share common premises.

Another thing I haven’t seen discussed as much is the role that climate change could play in determining which side wins. Should the consequences prove dire, then perhaps the Populist Left shouts “We told you so!” from the rooftops as its power and popularity surge to record heights. On the other hand, I can also potentially see more radical members hijacking the movement prematurely and quickly overstaying their welcome. Which, per action and reaction, would catapult the Populist Right into power as they hastily undo their predecessors’ reforms and rampage for a while before burning themselves out. Afterwards, it’s the Neo-Traditionalists’ turn to rule.

I hesitate to speculate upon this topic. One thing to note -- which is often forgotten -- is that change can be good for some, even if it's bad for others. Some places become shittier when the climate changes. But others become more pleasant.

Nonetheless, I’m still worried about whether there’ll be much of a world for them to govern at that point. Even if Modernity’s collapse doesn’t end in “1983 Soviet false-alarm incident gone hot”, there’s still radiation poisoning and the environmental effects of chemical and biological weapons being deployed en masse. Never mind the sheer numbers of people who’d die, though far be it from me to try and pinpoint just how many. To that end, maybe the first few decades of imperial rule will feature state-sponsored “fertility measures” that award people for having lots of children in a long-term effort to repopulate the world. These would probably become less and less important as population numbers recover, though the cultural expectation of large families will remain, should the macrohistorical forecast prove correct.

I'm not all the sure about all that mass destruction. As I've said before, I'd expect a global civil war, more than a "World War" as we've known it. Fought between contenders for power, not between whole peoples.

The mass death that I predict will mostly be due to the collapse of existing economic and political structures. Lots of starvation, especially in urban regions. And then there's the political purges, which will no doubt stand out, but which will hardly be all that relevant next to, ah... "death by natural causes". Lots of people depend on a complex network of supply chains right now. I expect that whole network to collapse for a bit. People without a patch of farming land will starve. People with such a patch of land but without the means to defend it will be killed by other people.

Meanwhile, I hardly think pro-natal policies will be needed. Once lots of people die, there's plenty to go around for the survivors. When there's plenty to be had, and no government to dole out welfare, people start having lots of kids. They do this all by themselves. No motivating actions needed.

Concerning the chaotic back-and-forth that’ll take place throughout this time frame, do you have any maps you could share with us? I know we can only be so precise in our prognostications, but a visual that at least depicts the gist of what the American and Chinese Empires can expect to control would be nice. Ditto for the constantly fluctuating borders that’ll mark the “Great Slaughter” in the antecedent years (and perhaps America’s “Mithridatic Wars” too, if you feel so inclined).

I have a map, yes. It's unfinished.

It's supposed to depict the world c. 2200, when the Empire is firmly established. This is of course completely fictional, and includes many flights of fancy. For instance, see the evidence of massive geo-engineering projects, which I've included as a fictional analogue to the construction of (for instance) China's Great Wall.

Naturally, the Electoral Circles I've coloured in here are also fully hypothetical, as are all borders, really. This is very impressionist. A setting for a future that could be, and very much not the exact future that I believe will be.

Anyway, this is the kind of thing you might expect. With lots of imaginary details, ranging from autonomous regions to militarised frontiers.

Lastly, do you have any thoughts on the syncretist scenario I outlined previously? Aside from whether it seems broadly plausible, there are a few points I feel a need to clarify or expand upon here. Namely, my interpretation that an America that implements the needed reforms early will mean that Neo-Caesar rises in Europe—which still has yet to fully undergo the nasty shit-fight between its “Optimates” and “Populares”. Not to mention reports of loose nukes and horrific violence abroad making the American public more receptive to re-militarization (thereby weakening the Congressionalists’ grip on power when challenged by the rising “Imperialist” faction, or at least pressuring them to invest in national defense more). Which, if things go according to plan, means that America becomes an empire anyway—possibly with “Augustus” entering office through a peaceful transition rather than one last bout of civil wars, before implementing “third way” policies that pair off laissez-faire economics and hands-off government at home with colonialism and a vast military abroad. To be sure, many particulars of this scenario will differ from your mainline one, but the idea is that overall results remain broadly the same.

I have replied to this in a private conversation, so I'll refrain from going into it here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the past year, the word I would use is "Unchecked". At least for the governors. So far the executive branches of the states have been ignoring the courts and the legislatures with no consequences.

It is hard to tell with the federal executive, because so far the bureaucracy has acted as a partisan check on the power of the federal executive. But the bureaucracy is also part of the executive. Once the Eunuchs have their puppet on the thrown, we have no signs that there is anything stopping the executive from doing anything at all.

Yes, this is important to note. The coming period will inform the period thereafter. People worry about the power of an Emperor, but forget that one of the Emperor's core tasks is to have scheming courtiers executed at irregular intervals.

This tends to be a healthy process for the state.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

When will the bubble burst?

After a longer period of time than many would like! The predictions that you often get about the big collapse coming in few years are... well, always wrong. (Funnily enough, when we really get close, people stop making such predictions. They're too busy with far more pressing issues at that time.)

My own estimate is that things really break down in the second half of this century, and a Caesarian tyrant seizes power at the century's close. That 'schedule' fits both with historical patterns, and with trends we're currently observing (e.g. economic, demographic, political...)

 

[Arch Dornan]

After a longer period of time than many would like! The predictions that you often get about the big collapse coming in few years are... well, always wrong. (Funnily enough, when we really get close, people stop making such predictions. They're too busy with far more pressing issues at that time.)

My own estimate is that things really break down in the second half of this century, and a Caesarian tyrant seizes power at the century's close. That 'schedule' fits both with historical patterns, and with trends we're currently observing (e.g. economic, demographic, political...)

So after I'm dead in five centuries or so.

 

[Skallagrim]

So after I'm dead in five centuries or so.

I'm going to assume you mean decades. Otherwise: what snazzy life-extension tech do you possess?

 

[Arch Dornan]

I'm going to assume you mean decades. Otherwise: what snazzy life-extension tech do you possess?

Whoops you mean 50 not 500.

 

[Arch Dornan]

This came up on my feed and this Mexican guy brought up the effects of the legalisation of weed. What happens when those grifts from the war of terror and drugs one day collapse? Criminals and people in the government are profiting from it for a long while.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Had a thought the other day.

What with its low debt, rich natural resources, steadily growing economy, vast manpower, strong internal corruption that ironically keeps bad foreign actors out, renowned military RnD, and an admittedly strong ruler, where does Russia stand in the grand scheme of things? She's got in excess of a thousand nuclear war heads and looks to be modernising her substantial military throughout the 2020s, all whilst seemingly lacking the internal strife of Western Nations (there's problems, I know, but I doubt there's too many Russians questioning whether or not Russia is a good thing).

In a scenario where America is Rome, does Russia have a chance at being Parthia if she plays her cards right?

Further shower thought: The Great Resetters do know that whilst they try to flat line the Western Economy, Russia will sit there, laugh, and plan how to take advantage, right?

 

[Megadeath]

Had a thought the other day.

What with its low debt, rich natural resources, steadily growing economy, vast manpower, strong internal corruption that ironically keeps bad foreign actors out, renowned military RnD, and an admittedly strong ruler, where does Russia stand in the grand scheme of things? She's got in excess of a thousand nuclear war heads and looks to be modernising her substantial military throughout the 2020s, all whilst seemingly lacking the internal strife of Western Nations (there's problems, I know, but I doubt there's too many Russians questioning whether or not Russia is a good thing).

In a scenario where America is Rome, does Russia have a chance at being Parthia if she plays her cards right?

Further shower thought: The Great Resetters do know that whilst they try to flat line the Western Economy, Russia will sit there, laugh, and plan how to take advantage, right?

Russian defence spending is less than a 10th of the US spending. It's only 50% more than Australia, despite representing about twice as much as a percentage of their GDP. They have their nukes, and a few flashy toys, but their numbers are far too low to be strategically meaningful, and the bulk of their forces are junk. They're practically impotent on a strategic scale, unless they decide to embrace MAD. So, no. Russia will not be fulfilling such a role in your madlibs interpretation of the cycle of history. This is why they have embraced their current strategy of aggressive diplomacy, espionage and asymmetric cyber warfare.

Also, you do realise that regardless of your interpretation of the nebulous "great reset" it's beyond unlikely that no one pushing for it actually intends to "flat line" their own economy, nor believes it will?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Russian defence spending is less than a 10th of the US spending.

At the moment, because they are being realistic with their money. Hence why they are maximising what bang they can get for their buck. As the Russian economy continues to grow, that expenditure will go up along with the military's size. Even then, the current Russian Armed Forces are hardly unimpressive, and are looking to get some good kit, tanks, ships and planes throughout the 2020s. They are rearming.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Further shower thought: The Great Resetters do know that whilst they try to flat line the Western Economy, Russia will sit there, laugh, and plan how to take advantage, right?

Russia's the real OCP for them, then?

The actual rival nation that doesn't simply have its own politicians and businessmen NOT being actual rivals with their "Great Reset" counterparts?

The Hard Power to their Soft Power?

Honestly, I think they're mostly just not thinking too much about it, China's the worlds' future ruler, not Russia

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Honestly, I think they're mostly just not thinking too much about it, China's the worlds' future ruler, not Russia

I don't know. If the US really goes tits up and China tries to take its mantle, it may well get gang banged by its neighbours. Why on Earth would India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and South East Asia (especially Vietnam) want China as world hegemon? Also, China doesn't quite have as many nuclear warheads as Russia...as in, China has about 300, and Russia has well over a thousand deployed and active.

That aside, as I understand it, the Chinese economy is mostly built on hot air. Russia's (although wobbly) isn't. Long run, that should favour the latter.

Edit: In addition, whilst Russia has demographic problems of her own, she never had the one child law and its resulting disaster.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I don't know. If the US really goes tits up and China tries to take its mantle, it may well get gang banged by its neighbours. Why on Earth would India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and South East Asia (especially Vietnam) want China as world hegemon? Also, China doesn't quite have as many nuclear warheads as Russia...as in, China has about 300, and Russia has well over a thousand deployed and active.

That aside, as I understand it, the Chinese economy is mostly built on hot air. Russia's (although wobbly) isn't. Long run, that should favour the latter.

Edit: In addition, whilst Russia has demographic problems of her own, she never had the one child law and its resulting disaster.

The whole "World's Largest Economy" and "Everyone wants to do business in China" thing?

Even in High School they were constantly talking about how futuristic China was, I remember even sleeping in one of their soundless trains once and barely feeling any movement at all the whole time

And long run? I don't think they're really thinking that far on average and they may actually think they're looking at the "long run" and are surrounded by people who also believe just that

Even the most corrupt and hypocritical, may actually believe in their own values and talking points, just not actually follow them

That said, yeah, whole One Child Policy was a thing I heard still going on whilst I was at Elementary School around 2006-2010 as I recall and was part of my religious class to talk about how cruel abortion was.....yeah they showed me plastic sacks of aborted babies and gave me nightmares for awhile all those years ago....still remember that story they did about some dumb kid imitating wrestling on his baby brother to show how bad wrestling was

Either way, gonna take awhile for said One Child Policy to actually backfire.....though I think lots of young men want/need companionship over there.

 

[Doomsought]

Either way, gonna take awhile for said One Child Policy to actually backfire.....though I think lots of young men want/need companionship over there.

This could end up badly if China feels it can get away with a war of conquest.

 

[UltimatePaladin]

This could end up badly if China feels it can get away with a war of conquest.

For what it's worth, China had apparently reversed the policy in 2015. Though, they're still going to deal with a crunch later on.

 

[Megadeath]

At the moment, because they are being realistic with their money. Hence why they are maximising what bang they can get for their buck. As the Russian economy continues to grow, that expenditure will go up along with the military's size. Even then, the current Russian Armed Forces are hardly unimpressive, and are looking to get some good kit, tanks, ships and planes throughout the 2020s. They are rearming.

Yeah, and we've seen what happens when they're not realistic with their spending. They simply can't win that contest. If they increased their spending 1,000% it would still be less than the US alone spends, and it would represent nearly half their GDP compared to less than 5%. America could double that increased Russian spending level, and still be under 8% GDP. The growth of the Russian economy is nowhere near enough to significantly change that in any kind of meaningful time frame. That also ignores that we're comparing Russia only to the US there, whilst ignoring the entire rest of NATO. Russia is not a meaningful threat to the western world in conventional warfare, nor can it be in any kind of meaningful time frame. Their rearmament amounts to updating strategic deterrence, and a handful of flashy new toys.

There might be interesting debate of whether the SU-57 or even the SU-35 can compare individually with the F-22 for example, but when you look at the production numbers (12+128 vs 198 respectively) and then factor in say the 600+ F-35s, it's clear they simply can't be truly competitive.