History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

Skallagrim

Well-known member
That would have been as bad as their current situation, considering the West is now ruled by the worst and most diabolical variant of Communism imaginable.

Free trade zone, yes, but that is all.

I'm hardly so certain. This is veering off into AH speculation, obviously, but consider:


-- Non-Western migration into the West has exploded as of the '90s. If the world-system had been re-organised into one immediately including Eastern Europe and Russia into a free trade zone, there would have been a greater saturation of cheap labour and goods from those countries. This would have forestalled both the (perceived) need and any kind of support for meaningful non-Western immigration. In short: the Turkish and North African 'guest workers', then still limited in number, would have found themselves the victims of an, ah... 'great replacement' by Slavs. Their work visas would not have been renewed. Islam in Europe would have become utterly marginal.

-- Meanwhile, exports to and money derived from guest workers in the traditional Western countries would have provided a tangible boon to the relevant post-Soviet countries, improving their capital flow (and doing so at a more 'ground floor' level, at that, rather than just concentrated into the hands of oligarchs).

-- Western investment in the Russian economy would likewise have provided a massive influx of reliable cash on short notice, greatly stabilising the immediate post-Soviet economy. This money would be chiefly invested in renewing and expanding Russia's resource-winning industry, and that industry would then provide far more jobs. Mostly to Russians. That the price of this would be that a fixed percentage of the profits would go to the Western stakeholders would barely matter to the man on the ground. (But conversely, the sheer amount of profits would provide a break-even on the massive Western investment within a decade or so.)

-- Such a degree of Western investment would come with allocation oversight. Meaning a swift purge of the non-pliable oligarchs. (Corruption is no problem: trouble-making is.) Also, Yeltsin's dumb voucher idea would be prevented. That scheme really was a disaster for Russia, and made the ologarchs infinitely more powerful (they bought up the vouchers), so preventing that would be a great positive.

-- As we know, Western Europe is as weak and spineless as it gets, but a country like Poland is far less afflicted with culturally left-wing bullshit. In the scenario I describe, Russia would be somewhat more like that: no reason to be totally anti-Western (they're much better off now), and certainly not anti-capitalist (indeed, they'd be living in the proof that communism kept them poor for nothing!), but still very much opposed to bullshit like cultural Marxism. In that sense, they'd be a positive counter-weight within the resulting world-system.

-- Russia's former subject states would distrust Russia still, certainly in the beginning, thus ensuring that a bloc including Belarus and Ukraine would certainly form, distinctly separate from the Russian 'sub-unit' within the greater alliance. This would pull the two countries mentioned right out of Russia's orbit, which would be good for them and for Russia.

-- I strongly suspect that in order for Russia to gain Polish agreement to this set-up, Russia would have to (be compelled to) sell Kalingrad to Poland. (Which Poland would do with Western-provided money.) Many Russians living there could easily be incentivised to take well-paying jobs in the Russian interior. Those would be readily available!

-- As I mentioned, this would definitely make the "integrationist" approach to Europe untenable. There would be no EU, and no Euro. Rather, I think the "Super-NATO" alliance I'm describing would consist of multiple blocs. The USA (a federation unto itself) would be one, and Russia (ditto) another. The other blocs would similarly pursue integration within their own confines, while between the blocs, there would only be free trade. Rather than a Euro, I think each bloc would introduce its own common currency.

-- Britain, Canada. New Zealand and Australia would form such a bloc. (The "Anglo" bloc.)

-- Scandinavia, Iceland, Ireland, Germany, the Benelux, Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein could form a bloc. (The largely "Germanic" bloc.)

-- France, Spain, Portugal, Andorra, Italy, Monaco, Malta, Slovenia and conceivably Croatia could form a bloc. (The largely "Romance" bloc.)

-- The Baltics, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Belarus and Ukraine could form a bloc. (The "Never Under Russia's Heel Again" bloc.)

-- Greece, Cyprus, former Yugoslavia (once properly collapsed, and potentially minus its North-West), Bulgaria and Hungary could form a bloc. I'd put Romania and Moldova in this bloc as well, but they might go with the North-East instead.

-- That gives us a "super-NATO" consisting of seven federal or confederal sub-entities, which share a common commitment to mutual defence, and have free trade amongst themselves.

-- Because of the availability of Eastern European / Russian labour and goods throughout the alliance, not only will Turks and North Africans have no meaningful access to Europe, but neither will Mexicans and other Latin Americans be so welcome in the USA. Hiring a cheap Slav will actually be much easier... and legal. So employers will do that.

-- Under these circumstances, Chinese entry to the WTO is very unlikely. China will thus remain far more poor, and the "super-NATO" bloc will have free trade within its own vast reach, but will have protectionist measures towards the rest of the world. Thus, as I mentioned, no NAFTA, either. The "super-NATO's" own free trade set-up is the ATL equivalent already!

-- In fact, over time, it'd become obvious that the economies of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan aren't actually magic, so once their steam runs out (which would be much sooner, in the face of "super-NATO's" protectionism) they'd be begging to join the alliance. Which would actually be a good move. Put some nukes there while you're at it, aimed at all major Chinese cities... in case they ever get ideas...

-- Finally, there's the point that with the Russian oil and gas readily available (and exploited effectively), there would be almost no need (if any at all) for oil from muslim states. So the islamic world would go very poor, and be totally powerless and insignificant. Which means: no reason for oil wars over there, either!


To recapitulate: no islam in the West, a much weaker islamic world (where the West has zero interests), a much weaker China, Russia drawn into the West, far fewer non-Western migrant in general, protectionism towards the non-Western world, considerably more wealth in Russia and Eastern Europe, no Euro and no European central bank, and a generally far more culturally conservative cohort of people within the borders of "super-NATO". What's not to like? This is what should have been done. We'd never have even heard of Vladimir Putin. No Xi Jinping, come to think of it. And for that matter, under these circumstances, Donald Trump would still be just a businessman. Maybe opening a lot of ritzy hotels for the nouveau riche class in Russia. Because under these circumstances, there'd be no reason for him to run for President at all...

It's deeply regrettable that things didn't turn out as outlined above. Nothing I've said here was impossible. Stranger ideas have been cosidered. Stranger ideas have been implemented. And this could have saved us a world of trouble. It certainly doesn't solve all the issues of the world; or even most. But it does solve most of the more 'recent 'issues--of the last 35 years--and that counts for something, too.
 
Last edited:

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
With respect, one problem I have with the macro view of current events is that it vastly overestimates the capabilities of the “Optimates“ (which is an unfair label to give. I don’t know of any liberal who’d die for the cause like Cato the Younger did). To my mind the current crop of imbeciles will be lucky to shamble past 2050.

Sulla is not coming to save them. He arose in a warrior aristocracy that prided martial virtue above all else, even in its corrupted state (same with Marius). In the reign of runaway liberalism however, in its obsession with equality, its world cannot stomach strength. An order that holds aloft the victim whilst spurning the warrior, that embraces division instead of unity, is destined for a swift oblivion. No one in the current patrician class appears aware of this or the need to pivot, and even worse they’d heckle out any bad motherfucker who could perhaps forestall the inevitable, so their fate is sealed.

Our lot will rule by 2100. And that is a pessimistic observation.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
With respect, one problem I have with the macro view of current events is that it vastly overestimates the capabilities of the “Optimates“ (which is an unfair label to give. I don’t know of any liberal who’d die for the cause like Cato the Younger did). To my mind the current crop of imbeciles will be lucky to shamble past 2050.

Sulla is not coming to save them. He arose in a warrior aristocracy that prided martial virtue above all else, even in its corrupted state (same with Marius). In the reign of runaway liberalism however, in its obsession with equality, its world cannot stomach strength. An order that holds aloft the victim whilst spurning the warrior, that embraces division instead of unity, is destined for a swift oblivion. No one in the current patrician class appears aware of this or the need to pivot, and even worse they’d heckle out any bad motherfucker who could perhaps forestall the inevitable, so their fate is sealed.

Our lot will rule by 2100. And that is a pessimistic observation.

I actually quite agree with the bulk of your reasoning, although I don't see it as an objection to taking the 'macro view'.

First off, it's important to stress that the straw-man raised by bad faith critics (namely that macro-history expects the West to be like 'Rome on repeat') is wrong. History does not repeat, it rhymes. So the specifics will be different. For instance, we recently talkd about some comparison material in the Star Wars thread. It came up that Augustus was Caesar's chosen heir, whereas his Chinese counterpart Liu Bang was a local official who essentially turned pirate and rose to the top. These... "backstories" are hardly similar, but for the purposes of macrohistory, they don't need to be. The fundamental point of analogy is that there's a cycle of civil wars going on, that the ascent of a meteoric conqueror has definitively ended the old order... and that the final phase of civil wars will now (upon the death of said conqueror) continue until a man of the right quality rises to the top. And that quality is always the exact same: it has to be a caculating, even ruthless man, who is willing to carry out all the practically needed reforms, while being socially traditionalist, and who is capable of draping all his reforms in the cloth of revered tradititional legitimacy.

The civil war goes on until that happens, because that's the only real victory condition. (For civilisation as a whole.) Nobody cares where the guy doing this comes from. He can be a prince or a pauper. It doesn't matter. By the end, he'll be the Emperor. That's what matters.

Which is a very elaborate way of saying that we don't have to expect our "Optimates" to be exactly like their "Optimates", either. They can be just as different in the specifics. The only real requirement is that there is an established, deeply entrenched "upper layer" within society, which has rigged the governing socio-economic system in its own overwhelming favour, and which will do anything to perpetuate the established system... even when this course of action has become unsustainably destructive to society as a whole. (In fact, the reality of it having become unsustainably destructive paired with their refusal to alter course is what incites the civil wars. They cause their own destruction, they create their own destroyers.)

These can be the scions of the old patrician families in a Republic, or they can be the calcified nobility of Chu. They can also be... "Davos people", as it were. Those three examples are very different in their iterations, but functionally speaking, they're the exact same thing. They play the same basic role in society, and in history.

I suspect that you'll generally agree with me on this, some reasonable -- and probably justified -- quibbles notwithstanding.

Where we may disagree, and where I'll try to make my case, is regarding the implied assumption that our "elite" is uniquely (or at least: unusually) incompetent. I don't believe they are. Which is not to say that they're not incompetent very often. Rather, my point is that the Optimates were similarly incompetent, as were the Chu nobles. (Who, as we've noted some time ago, actually executed the man most likely to save them because they were afraid of his considerable competence, compared to their distinct lack of same.)

You mention Cato the Younger. I say: should we measure them by the very noblest outlier of their cohort, who so often criticised them? If so, where are the others who chose death over indignity? At best, some died after having become murderous traitors, primarily to avoid torture. Most others were cut down as sitting ducks, or just... rolled over and accepted the New Order. The eclipse of the Optimates was no glorious last stand, but a humiliating death rattle. They were over-taken and over-shadowed by competent leaders that they appointed in utter desperation. Leaders who were not of their actual cohort, and who generally despised them. Leaders who just hated to Populares more, because they were genuinely committed to preserving a Republic that in reality no longer existed.

In no circumstance other than the triumph of the Marian faction would the Optimates have ever backed Sulla. He was a lion to them as much as to the Populares. But he hated populism, and populism was the direct threat, so at that moment he was -- at least nominally -- "their man". And they lived in terror for every single day of his reign, for there was a lion amongst them. And he was, in his own way, principled enough to relinquish power. Had that not been the case, they'd have poisoned him for sure. Right after he was done breaking the Marian faction. That's, more or less, how it played out in China.

Maybe that's how it plays here, too. Fearing a populist who can get the job done, they turn to the "lesser evil". To the sort of man they hate and fear, but who still believes in upholding the established order, in the vain hope that peace and sanity can be restored. Maybe he does it and retires. Maybe he does it and they have him killed. They're not quite so stupid that they'd refuse his help first, though. Because the alternative is worse for them, and the alternative -- certainly by that time -- is very real. So they'll hold their noses and back a man far more capable than they are... fully intending to betray him if he doesn't leave after doing what they want him to do.

Regardless, I certainly agree that this will all be settled by AD 2100 or thereabouts. I don't regard it as a pessimistic estimate, however. The complacency of the people is always my measuring rod; and that complacency remains considerable. I feel that this will not change until the continued mismanagement causes greater hardship for greater numbers of people. That alone will bring about the widespread and intense discontent upon which a populist triumph is built.

Too many people still have too much to lose for them to risk overthrowing the current establishment. That is what keeps the establishment in power, rather than much in the way of compentence on their part. And in fact their incompetence will indeed cause this state of affairs to alter to their detriment. But it does take time. Not because of their (none-too-great) competence, but because the residual wealth of the system has not yet been used up.

My own estimation is that the democratic farce will be held up until the populist discontent achieves a critical majority. I expect that to occur in the late 2050s, based both on currently observed trends and on historical examples of similar developments. At that time, the establishment will be desperate enough to set loose a lion, if only he'll slay the populists for them. Whether the lion voluntarily returns to his cage or gets put down is immaterial. The important thing is that afterwards, the pretense of democracy and majority rule will be abandoned... and the example of the lion's methods will have set a precedent. Historically, examples of the subsequent anti-populist elite rule have lasted three decades. Maybe it'll be swifter for us. But it ends when someone unites the populists and seizes power by force of arms. I expect this to happen as we approach 2090. And then we see that thing called "Caesarism".

We might count that as the end. By that time, the current establishment is certainly over and done with. So if that's the qualifier, we can say that "our lot" will most probably be in charge by 2090 or so. But Caesar is not Augustus. In many ways, the actual historical Caesar ended the age that Alexander commenced. Augustus started the new era. So in that same way, we might also argue that our "Caesar" will be the one to close the era that was commenced by Napoleon, and that the true transition only comes after his time. And no matter how it plays out, the time between the triumph of a "Caesar" and that of the subsequent "Augustus" is almost always around two decades. (Which is truly fascinating: if a "Caesar" rules for longer, any subsequent civil war is always just correspondingly shorter! I think it has to do with the available amount of energy in a given system.)

So anyway, if we use the triumph of "Augustus" -- and thus the practical commencement of the "Principate" -- as our marker, then I'd expect the final end of the current age to actually transpire around AD 2110.

Now, of course, these are averages. It can easily diverge by years-- conceivably by well over a decade. Maybe it will all go swifter than I expect, and maybe there's a very good reason for that, which I just don't see yet. The numbers I cite aren't set in stone, and I don't treat them as if they are. They are just the ballpark numbers; decent indicators of roughly what to expect based on a lot of prior experience throughout all of recorded history.
 
Last edited:

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
I actually quite agree with the bulk of your reasoning, although I don't see it as an objection to taking the 'macro view'.

First off, it's important to stress that the straw-man raised by bad faith critics (namely that macro-history expects the West to be like 'Rome on repeat') is wrong. History does not repeat, it rhymes. So the specifics will be different. For instance, we recently talkd about some comparison material in the Star Wars thread. It came up that Augustus was Caesar's chosen heir, whereas his Chinese counterpart Liu Bang was a local official who essentially turned pirate and rose to the top. These... "backstories" are hardly similar, but for the purposes of macrohistory, they don't need to be. The fundamental point of analogy is that there's a cycle of civil wars going on, that the ascent of a meteoric conqueror has definitively ended the old order... and that the final phase of civil wars will now (upon the death of said conqueror) continue until a man of the right quality rises to the top. And that quality is always the exact same: it has to be a caculating, even ruthless man, who is willing to carry out all the practically needed reforms, while being socially traditionalist, and who is capable of draping all his reforms in the cloth of revered tradititional legitimacy.

The civil war goes on until that happens, because that's the only real victory condition. (For civilisation as a whole.) Nobody cares where the guy doing this comes from. He can be a prince or a pauper. It doesn't matter. By the end, he'll be the Emperor. That's what matters.

Which is a very elaborate way of saying that we don't have to expect our "Optimates" to be exactly like their "Optimates", either. They can be just as different in the specifics. The only real requirement is that there is an established, deeply entrenched "upper layer" within society, which has rigged the governing socio-economic system in its own overwhelming favour, and which will do anything to perpetuate the established system... even when this course of action has become unsustainably destructive to society as a whole. (In fact, the reality of it having become unsustainably destructive paired with their refusal to alter course is what incites the civil wars. They cause their own destruction, they create their own destroyers.)

These can be the scions of the old patrician families in a Republic, or they can be the calcified nobility of Chu. They can also be... "Davos people", as it were. Those three examples are very different in their iterations, but functionally speaking, they're the exact same thing. They play the same basic role in society, and in history.

I suspect that you'll generally agree with me on this, some reasonable -- and probably justified -- quibbles notwithstanding.

Where we may disagree, and where I'll try to make my case, is regarding the implied assumption that our "elite" is uniquely (or at least: unusually) incompetent. I don't believe they are. Which is not to say that they're not incompetent very often. Rather, my point is that the Optimates were similarly incompetent, as were the Chu nobles. (Who, as we've noted some time ago, actually executed the man most likely to save them because they were afraid of his considerable competence, compared to their distinct lack of same.)

You mention Cato the Younger. I say: should we measure them by the very noblest outlier of their cohort, who so often criticised them? If so, where are the others who chose death over indignity? At best, some died after having become murderous traitors, primarily to avoid torture. Most others were cut down as sitting ducks, or just... rolled over and accepted the New Order. The eclipse of the Optimates was no glorious last stand, but a humiliating death rattle. They were over-taken and over-shadowed by competent leaders that they appointed in utter desperation. Leaders who were not of their actual cohort, and who generally despised them. Leaders who just hated to Populares more, because they were genuinely committed to preserving a Republic that in reality no longer existed.

In no circumstance other than the triumph of the Marian faction would the Optimates have ever backed Sulla. He was a lion to them as much as to the Populares. But he hated populism, and populism was the direct threat, so at that moment he was -- at least nominally -- "their man". And they lived in terror for every single day of his reign, for there was a lion amongst them. And he was, in his own way, principled enough to relinquish power. Had that not been the case, they'd have poisoned him for sure. Right after he was done breaking the Marian faction. That's, more or less, how it played out in China.

Maybe that's how it plays here, too. Fearing a populist who can get the job done, they turn to the "lesser evil". To the sort of man they hate and fear, but who still believes in upholding the established order, in the vain hope that peace and sanity can be restored. Maybe he does it and retires. Maybe he does it and they have him killed. They're not quite so stupid that they'd refuse his help first, though. Because the alternative is worse for them, and the alternative -- certainly by that time -- is very real. So they'll hold their noses and back a man far more capable than they are... fully intending to betray him if he doesn't leave after doing what they want him to do.

Regardless, I certainly agree that this will all be settled by AD 2100 or thereabouts. I don't regard it as a pessimistic estimate, however. The complacency of the people is always my measuring rod; and that complacency remains considerable. I feel that this will not change until the continued mismanagement causes greater hardship for greater numbers of people. That alone will bring about the widespread and intense discontent upon which a populist triumph is built.

Too many people still have too much to lose for them to risk overthrowing the current establishment. That is what keeps the establishment in power, rather than much in the way of compentence on their part. And in fact their incompetence will indeed cause this state of affairs to alter to their detriment. But it does take time. Not because of their (none-too-great) competence, but because the residual wealth of the system has not yet been used up.

My own estimation is that the democratic farce will be held up until the populist discontent achieves a critical majority. I expect that to occur in the late 2050s, based both on currently observed trends and on historical examples of similar developments. At that time, the establishment will be desperate enough to set loose a lion, if only he'll slay the populists for them. Whether the lion voluntarily returns to his cage or gets put down is immaterial. The important thing is that afterwards, the pretense of democracy and majority rule will be abandoned... and the example of the lion's methods will have set a precedent. Historically, examples of the subsequent anti-populist elite rule have lasted three decades. Maybe it'll be swifter for us. But it ends when someone unites the populists and seizes power by force of arms. I expect this to happen as we approach 2090. And then we see that thing called "Caesarism".

We might count that as the end. By that time, the current establishment is certainly over and done with. So if that's the qualifier, we can say that "our lot" will most probably be in charge by 2090 or so. But Caesar is not Augustus. In many ways, the actual historical Caesar ended the age that Alexander commenced. Augustus started the new era. So in that same way, we might also argue that our "Caesar" will be the one to close the era that was commenced by Napoleon, and that the true transition only comes after his time. And no matter how it plays out, the time between the triumph of a "Caesar" and that of the subsequent "Augustus" is almost always around two decades. (Which is truly fascinating: if a "Caesar" rules for longer, any subsequent civil war is always just correspondingly shorter! I think it has to do with the available amount of energy in a given system.)

So anyway, if we use the triumph of "Augustus" -- and thus the practical commencement of the "Principate" -- as our marker, then I'd expect the final end of the current age to actually transpire around AD 2110.

Now, of course, these are averages. It can easily diverge by years-- conceivably by well over a decade. Maybe it will all go swifter than I expect, and maybe there's a very good reason for that, which I just don't see yet. The numbers I cite aren't set in stone, and I don't treat them as if they are. They are just the ballpark numbers; decent indicators of roughly what to expect based on a lot of prior experience throughout all of recorded history.
That’s an acceptable argument. Well put.

My opinion on the matter is whilst the “populares” are a force to be reckoned with, the “optimates” will crash and burn all on their own long before the “populares” can get their hands on them. The Davos Crowd are uniquely that brain dead and any potential Sulla’s who could save them from themselves for a little while would likely have already been “cancelled” or harangued. There’d be little love lost in such a situation, and he’d be an outsider because their world does not produce men like him.

I am also perhaps thinking of the British context a little too much. The American situation is very different from mine, as in my country’s case (aristocratic in spirit, even with most of the old blood thinned by the Great War) the “Optimates” are starting to split. What is currently rising in the Tory Party as the Neoliberals humiliate themselves is not exactly populist but will be for the good of the Realm.

But still. We’ve amusingly enough arrived at roughly the same conclusion. The current order is fucked and won’t see 2100. I may well be alive to blow the confetti over its tombstone.

On a lighter note, as this is very much the thread to nerd out about history, I have concluded that Augustus made a singular, catastrophic error that indirectly destroyed Roman Civilisation in the West, and that was how he set up the Praetorian Guard. By making it a political institution as much as military (filling it with some of the finest men in Rome), he by accident made it a political party. The soldier Emperors meanwhile, who filled the guard with battle hardened veterans, never had issues with it; indeed, the Guard not only protected their charge well, they were also crack troops on the field. Even when they weren’t, they went down swinging at Milvian Bridge.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
My opinion on the matter is whilst the “populares” are a force to be reckoned with, the “optimates” will crash and burn all on their own long before the “populares” can get their hands on them. The Davos Crowd are uniquely that brain dead and any potential Sulla’s who could save them from themselves for a little while would likely have already been “cancelled” or harangued. There’d be little love lost in such a situation, and he’d be an outsider because their world does not produce men like him.

It should be fortunate indeed, if the present oligarchy proves suicidally foolish enough to alienate or kill those "hard men" who might yet extend their governing order (albeit in an increasingly warped and desperate form) for a few decades longer. The sooner things are turned around, the less bloody it'll be. Just looking at Rome, we can say that a world where Marius gets his way and makes his reforms stick is a world where all the blodshed after his time is avoided. (Of course, the long-term consequences for a civilisation are hard to determine: I know of no instance where this path was taken.)

In previous conversation elsewhere (now some years past), I've at times entertained "long-shot scenarios" for the future of the West. This is speculation, evidently, but let's consider some options.

One, of course, and I think the best by far, is that some kind of relatively low-level violent clash occurs sooner rather than later. I've mentioned this more recently as well, in the context of the Texas border crisis. If a civil war of sorts were to occur now over such an issue, or over the coming election, and the MAGA faction wins (and implements its full domestic programme), then most serious internal problems would be solved for America. The rest of the Western world will have to re-adjust very quickly to the new reality, but I don't see that as overly implausible. This is comparable to a complete Gracchan triumph, leading to elite backlash, which is crushed. I'd call that the last half-way credible option to save the Roman Republic; and it's no different in our time.

The opposing scenario, where a civil war erupts now and the establishment wins, is no such game-changer. In fact, that's just a smewhat more escalated version of what they're planning anyway. If Trump wins, either get rid of him or sabotage him to such an extent that nothing gets (lastingly) done. They'll use lawfare, they'll use court packing, they'll use fortified elections, and if they get a majority in the legislative, they won't hesitate to impose unilateral measures that would undermine their enemies for decades thereafter. Which is precisely in line with what we should expect based in historical precedent.

Which brings us to "Marian" phase; that next popular upwelling of ardent discontent, which follows (invariably) after some decades of suppression following the "Gracchan" phase. As I mentioned, typically something like three decades may be expected. Since the coming years will be defining for the "Gracchan" phase, this means we're speaking of the mid-to-late-2050s here. By your estimation, that might then actually be the time for the demise of the current crop of oligarchs. As I mentioned, there is no historical precedent. (But neither can it be ruled out; I personally call it a "long shot", or "a path less travelled" if you will.)

I see two ways in which this might occur.

The first is your fundamental notion. That no "Sulla" will lend himself to the cause of the establishment (or even if he would, that they'd sooner reject -- or even kill -- him out of spite than accept him). The consequence is that the by-then well and truly coalesced "Populares" achieve a stunning victory and re-order the state most thoroughly. What results would be a proto-Caesarism, having all the same characteristics, but essentially toned down a bit. More of the old order (in a leal-structural sense) would be retained. For America, whatever comes out of this will still be called a Republic, no doubt. And in this case, perhaps with some justification.

Note that this period of unrest, just past mid-century, will almost certainly be more acute and destructive for Europe. Now, remember that besides reforming the populist faction to be more broad (not just citizens, but allies as well!), Marius was also in his deeds a champion of effective and practical Imperium. In that same way, I see the future counterparts to that role uniting a broad coalition that leaves the divisions of race behind... while also ditching the harmful isolationism of the current MAGA crowd.

It is this isolationism that will permit the enemies of the West to gain far too substantial a foothold to ever be tolerated by sane men. And it will be up to their political descendants -- grown wise by experience -- to fight the hard battles that become inevitable because of this.

This implies to me that in the event of an easy and decisive "Marian" triumph by 2060 or so, without the horrors of a big civil war, the resulting political order will be proto-Caesarist in its foreign policy as well. By which I mean: imperialist. That would suggest the imposition of order in chaotic Europe. The resulting world-system may not be the fully-fledged Empire that I consider more probable, but it won't be a loose amalgamation like NATO, either. Here, too: the gist of Caesarism, but less drastic, because it's implemented earlier (and so can afford to be less drastic).

An alternative scenario would be one in which the "Populares", due to poor leadership, fail to coalesce properly. Remember that Gaius Marius himself faced criticism for his aim of enfranchising the Socii, from a cohort of his faction that preferred to keep it a "pure", citizens-only cause. The modern Western equivalent can be found in the white identitarian and "fascism is actually kinda cool" undercurrent within the MAGA movement. If we consider the prospect of that current becoming too dominant, we see that this would prevent the formation of a sufficiently broad & truly "popular" movement. A civil war between (essentially) neo-fascists and the corrupt establishment would be a no-win scenario.

Enter "Sulla". Under such circumstances, the elite would be far more ready to invite such a man. And even if they're not: they wouldn't be in a position to stop him anyway. As a sane third faction, a capable man and his supporters could eradicate both of the warring evils and restore order to the Republic. In this case, due to the rival factions being discredited, it would actually be definitive.

The resulting ordering of society would (in some ways) resemble a proto-Principate a bit more than proto-Caesarism. More aristocratic, far less concerned with upholding egalitarian goals. But what is Sulla, other than a counter-Marius? For all the ways they're different, they both clean house. They're both capable. They both rise above the great cohort.

So that outcome, taken altogether, wouldn't be so bad either.


I am also perhaps thinking of the British context a little too much. The American situation is very different from mine, as in my country’s case (aristocratic in spirit, even with most of the old blood thinned by the Great War) the “Optimates” are starting to split. What is currently rising in the Tory Party as the Neoliberals humiliate themselves is not exactly populist but will be for the good of the Realm.

In fact, what you describe here now sort of points in that direction. In UK terms, if the "Marians" of the land are to be seen as ultimately descending from the discontent that produced UKIP, then the "Sullans" should be viewed as descending from the worthiest among the Conservatives.

Either way, the champagne socialists of Labour, the indolent and self-serving Tory MPs who never express principle, and the brutish neo-nazi types who know nothing of culture but think only of skin colour... those all lack a future. They're dead ends, no matter how things play out.


But still. We’ve amusingly enough arrived at roughly the same conclusion. The current order is fucked and won’t see 2100. I may well be alive to blow the confetti over its tombstone.

I certainly hope so! We indeed agree, and while my projections may be on the more reserved side, I hope that you're right. It would be satisfying to live to see it, and even if I do croak before then-- the lives spared due to quicker resolution can only be seen as a good thing.



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



On a lighter note, as this is very much the thread to nerd out about history, I have concluded that Augustus made a singular, catastrophic error that indirectly destroyed Roman Civilisation in the West, and that was how he set up the Praetorian Guard. By making it a political institution as much as military (filling it with some of the finest men in Rome), he by accident made it a political party. The soldier Emperors meanwhile, who filled the guard with battle hardened veterans, never had issues with it; indeed, the Guard not only protected their charge well, they were also crack troops on the field. Even when they weren’t, they went down swinging at Milvian Bridge.

Very true! I wonder at his ultimate motivations. Perhaps it's hindsight, but he was surely aware that many previous examples of politicised armed forced ended... poorly. However, my suspicion is that he had limited options. His main goal was social and political stability, and everything was a political tool to him. Observe how, after Actium, he very deliberately merged his forces with those of Marcus Antonius. I feel that after that, the position of the Praetorian Guard was automatically used as political leverage to keep control over people interested in position.

I think Syme notes that at many occasions, Augustus had trouble getting people engaged in politics. He actively tried to keep political life from becoming moribund (because he feared what might emerge into the vacuüm -- rightly so). He largely succeed. What he created was an Empire where all politics were court politics. No longer a danger to the state, but still in some sense alive and active. Providing positions for men to obtain, and roles for them to play. (Augustus, as we know, viewed even himself as "playing a role". Literally right to the end.)

This is, almost certainly, the masterstroke that made the Empire stable. That allowed it to prevail, even when the Emperor was an idiot. Or mad. Or both. He could lead a toxic court and butcher countless courtiers, but it wouldn't overthrow the state.

The downside of the set-up is that all institutions of the court are political in nature, and that those playing key roles would be... acclimatised to court politics. Selected for it, even. And we know the outcomes of that.
 
Last edited:

Cherico

Well-known member
It should be fortunate indeed, if the present oligarchy proves suicidally foolish enough to alienate or kill those "hard men" who might yet extend their governing order (albeit in an increasingly warped and desperate form) for a few decades longer. The sooner things are turned around, the less bloody it'll be. Just looking at Rome, we can say that a world where Marius gets his way and makes his reforms stick is a world where all the blodshed after his time is avoided. (Of course, the long-term consequences for a civilisation are hard to determine: I know of no instance where this path was taken.)

In previous conversation elsewhere (now some years past), I've at times entertained "long-shot scenarios" for the future of the West. This is speculation, evidently, but let's consider some options.

One, of course, and I think the best by far, is that some kind of relatively low-level violent clash occurs sooner rather than later. I've mentioned this more recently as well, in the context of the Texas border crisis. If a civil war of sorts were to occur now over such an issue, or over the coming election, and the MAGA faction wins (and implements its full domestic programme), then most serious internal problems would be solved for America. The rest of the Western world will have to re-adjust very quickly to the new reality, but I don't see that as overly implausible. This is comparable to a complete Gracchan triumph, leading to elite backlash, which is crushed. I'd call that the last half-way credible option to save the Roman Republic; and it's no different in our time.

The opposing scenario, where a civil war erupts now and the establishment wins, is no such game-changer. In fact, that's just a smewhat more escalated version of what they're planning anyway. If Trump wins, either get rid of him or sabotage him to such an extent that nothing gets (lastingly) done. They'll use lawfare, they'll use court packing, they'll use fortified elections, and if they get a majority in the legislative, they won't hesitate to impose unilateral measures that would undermine their enemies for decades thereafter. Which is precisely in line with what we should expect based in historical precedent.

Which brings us to "Marian" phase; that next popular upwelling of ardent discontent, which follows (invariably) after some decades of suppression following the "Gracchan" phase. As I mentioned, typically something like three decades may be expected. Since the coming years will be defining for the "Gracchan" phase, this means we're speaking of the mid-to-late-2050s here. By your estimation, that might then actually be the time for the demise of the current crop of oligarchs. As I mentioned, there is no historical precedent. (But neither can it be ruled out; I personally call it a "long shot", or "a path less travelled" if you will.)

I see two ways in which this might occur.

The first is your fundamental notion. That no "Sulla" will lend himself to the cause of the establishment (or even if he would, that they'd sooner reject -- or even kill -- him out of spite than accept him). The consequence is that the by-then well and truly coalesced "Populares" achieve a stunning victory and re-order the state most thoroughly. What results would be a proto-Caesarism, having all the same characteristics, but essentially toned down a bit. More of the old order (in a leal-structural sense) would be retained. For America, whatever comes out of this will still be called a Republic, no doubt. And in this case, perhaps with some justification.

Note that this period of unrest, just past mid-century, will almost certainly be more acute and destructive for Europe. Now, remember that besides reforming the populist faction to be more broad (not just citizens, but allies as well!), Marius was also in his deeds a champion of effective and practical Imperium. In that same way, I see the future cunterparts to that role uniting a broad coalition that leaves the divisions of race behind... while also ditching the harmful isolationism of the current MAGA crowd.

It is this isolationism that will permit the enemies of the West to gain far too substantial a foothold to ever be tolerated by sane men. And it will be up to their political descendants -- grown wise by experience -- to fight the hard battles that become inevitable because of this.

This implies to me that in the event of an easy and decisive "Marian" triumph by 2060 or so, without the horrors of a big civil war, the resulting political order will be proto-Caesarist in its foreign policy as well. By which I mean: imperialist. That would suggest the imposition of order in chaotic Europe. The resulting world-system may not be the fully-fledged Empire that I consider more probable, but it won't be a loose amalgamation like NATO, either. Here, too: the gist of Caesarism, but less drastic, because it's implemented earlier (and so can afford to be less drastic).

An alternative scenario would be one in which the "Populares", due to poor leadership, fail to coalesce properly. Remember that Gaius Marius himself faced criticism for his aim of enfranchising the Socii, from a cohort of his faction that preferred to keep it a "pure", citizens-only cause. The modern Western equivalent can be found in the white identitarian and "fascism is actually kinda cool" undercurrent within the MAGA movement. If we consider the prospect of that current becoming too dominant, we see that this would prevent the formation of a sufficiently broad & truly "popular" movement. A civil war between (essentially) neo-fascists and the corrupt establishment would be a no-win scenario.

Enter "Sulla". Under such circumstances, the elite would be far more ready to invite such a man. And even if they're not: they wouldn't be in a position to stop him anyway. As a sane third faction, a capable man and his supporters could eradicate both of the warring evils and restore order to the Republic. In this case, due to the rival factions being discredited, it would actually be definitive.

The resulting ordering of society would (in some ways) resemble a proto-Principate a bit more than proto-Caesarism. More aristocratic, far less concerned with upholding egalitarian goals. But what is Sulla, other than a counter-Marius? For all the ways they're different, they both clean house. They're both capable. They both rise above the great cohort.

So that outcome, taken altogether, wouldn't be so bad either.




In fact, what you describe here now sort of points in that direction. In UK terms, if the "Marians" of the land are to be seen as ultimately descending from the discontent that produced UKIP, then the "Sullans" should be viewed as descending from the worthiest among the Conservatives.

Either way, the champagne ocialists of Labour, the indolent and self-serving Tory MPs who never express principle, and the brutish neo-nazi types who know nothing of culture but think only of skin colour... those all lack a future. They're dead ends, no matter how things play out.




I certainly hope so! We indeed agree, and while my projections may be on the more reserved side, I hope that you're right. It would be satisfying to live to see it, and even if I do croak before then-- the lives spared due to quicker resolution can only be seen as a good thing.



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





Very true! I wonder at his ultimate motivations. Perhaps it's hindsight, but he was surely aware that many previous examples of politicised armed forced ended... poorly. However, my suspicion is that he had limited options. His main goal was social and political stability, and everything was a political tool to him. Observe how, after Actium, he very deliberately merged his forces with those of Marcus Antonius. I feel that after that, the position of the Praetorian Guard was automatically used as political leverage to keep control over people interested in position.

I think Syme notes that at many occasions, Augustus had trouble getting people engaged in politics. He actively tried to keep political life from becoming moribund (because he feared what might emerge into the vacuüm -- rightly so). He largely succeed. What he created was an Empire where all politics were court politics. No longer a danger to the state, but still in som sense alive and active. Providing positions for men to obtain, and roles for them to play. (Augustus, as we know, viewed even himself as "playing a role". Literally right to the end.)

This is, almost certainly, the masterstroke that made the Empire stable. That allowed it to prevail, even when the Emperor was an idiot. Or mad. Or both. He could lead a toxic court and butcher countless courtiers, but it wouldn't overthrow the state.

The downside of the set-up is that all institutions of the court are political in nature, and that those playing key roles would be... acclimatised to court politics. Selected for it, even. And we know the outcomes of that.

So do you think we will stop sexualy mutalating children during our Marian reforms or will we have to wait for a ceasar figure to get that shit to stop?
 

ATP

Well-known member
So do you think we will stop sexualy mutalating children during our Marian reforms or will we have to wait for a ceasar figure to get that shit to stop?
Could be worst.Barbarians/muslim in Europe,migrants in USA/ could do that for us on remnants of our civilization.
 

Blasterbot

Well-known member
It is this isolationism that will permit the enemies of the West to gain far too substantial a foothold to ever be tolerated by sane men. And it will be up to their political descendants -- grown wise by experience -- to fight the hard battles that become inevitable because of this.
On the Isolationism I think it wouldn't be that hard to sell MAGA on foreign ties if you put it into terms of how it actually helps America and the American citizens. The issue people have is for decades we have hollowed out the core of our economy in favor of empowering not just allies but actively antagonistic nations to us under the guise of bringing them into the fold. it has had at best decidedly mixed results and at worst has empowered China to be our current #1 rival.

Trying to sell to MAGA that we need to send X hundred billion more to whatever country in order to spread Democracy is just farcical. Saying that we want access to the mountains for their lithium or something would be something easier to sell. still not great as we refuse to develop Alaska and it's frankly ridiculous amount of natural resources.

Elites won't try and put things in that manner though. they believe they can rile up a mob to send against their enemies if they say the correct magic words loud enough and often enough. they don't consider the consequences of it though. the words lose power when you lie too much and the anger of the mob does not simply disappear into the ether after you unleash them.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
On the Isolationism I think it wouldn't be that hard to sell MAGA on foreign ties if you put it into terms of how it actually helps America and the American citizens. The issue people have is for decades we have hollowed out the core of our economy in favor of empowering not just allies but actively antagonistic nations to us under the guise of bringing them into the fold. it has had at best decidedly mixed results and at worst has empowered China to be our current #1 rival.

Trying to sell to MAGA that we need to send X hundred billion more to whatever country in order to spread Democracy is just farcical. Saying that we want access to the mountains for their lithium or something would be something easier to sell. still not great as we refuse to develop Alaska and it's frankly ridiculous amount of natural resources.

Elites won't try and put things in that manner though. they believe they can rile up a mob to send against their enemies if they say the correct magic words loud enough and often enough. they don't consider the consequences of it though. the words lose power when you lie too much and the anger of the mob does not simply disappear into the ether after you unleash them.

If you want an empire you have to compensate the people who make said empire possible.
 
Note that this period of unrest, just past mid-century, will almost certainly be more acute and destructive for Europe. Now, remember that besides reforming the populist faction to be more broad (not just citizens, but allies as well!), Marius was also in his deeds a champion of effective and practical Imperium. In that same way, I see the future counterparts to that role uniting a broad coalition that leaves the divisions of race behind... while also ditching the harmful isolationism of the current MAGA crowd.

It is this isolationism that will permit the enemies of the West to gain far too substantial a foothold to ever be tolerated by sane men. And it will be up to their political descendants -- grown wise by experience -- to fight the hard battles that become inevitable because of this.

I think you underestimate how much of us MAGAs is absolutely browbeaten, worldweary, and broken by the constant political forever wars that have occurred in the past 60-some-odd years.ESPECAILLY the last 20 years. It is so bad, that I do not think I speak in hyperbole when I say some would be perfectly content if the entire rest of the world (and California) just plunged into the sea and took their kingdoms and cultures with them.

The only way I see that being broken is in a truly defensive war. This means the enemy would have to gain a foothold and I'm sorry but a MAGA America driven to imperialism would not be a force of conquest and expansion. I fear it It'd be a force of desolation. America is constantly compared to a sleeping giant. What happens when the Sleeping Giant finally gets sick of constantly being disturbed?

Germany was a sleeping giant too until a myriad of factors woke it from its slumber....the end result was WWII and the Holocaust.
 
On the Isolationism I think it wouldn't be that hard to sell MAGA on foreign ties if you put it into terms of how it actually helps America and the American citizens. The issue people have is for decades we have hollowed out the core of our economy in favor of empowering not just allies but actively antagonistic nations to us under the guise of bringing them into the fold. it has had at best decidedly mixed results and at worst has empowered China to be our current #1 rival.

Trying to sell to MAGA that we need to send X hundred billion more to whatever country in order to spread Democracy is just farcical. Saying that we want access to the mountains for their lithium or something would be something easier to sell. still not great as we refuse to develop Alaska and it's frankly ridiculous amount of natural resources.

Elites won't try and put things in that manner though. they believe they can rile up a mob to send against their enemies if they say the correct magic words loud enough and often enough. they don't consider the consequences of it though. the words lose power when you lie too much and the anger of the mob does not simply disappear into the ether after you unleash them.

No, blanket resources wouldn't work. Real estate would be your best bet. If there is two things conservatives want more than anything it's as follows "Peace and quiet" and "Something to pass on as a little legacy."
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
I think you underestimate how much of us MAGAs is absolutely browbeaten, worldweary, and broken by the constant political forever wars that have occurred in the past 60-some-odd years.ESPECAILLY the last 20 years. It is so bad, that I do not think I speak in hyperbole when I say some would be perfectly content if the entire rest of the world (and California) just plunged into the sea and took their kingdoms and cultures with them.

The only way I see that being broken is in a truly defensive war. This means the enemy would have to gain a foothold and I'm sorry but a MAGA America driven to imperialism would not be a force of conquest and expansion. I fear it It'd be a force of desolation. America is constantly compared to a sleeping giant. What happens when the Sleeping Giant finally gets sick of constantly being disturbed?

Germany was a sleeping giant too until a myriad of factors woke it from its slumber....the end result was WWII and the Holocaust.
Do not matter,as long as both american parties support building Empire.
And,germany was not sleeping giant,but racist idiots who started two world wars and both lost thanks to their own stupidity.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Do not matter,as long as both american parties support building Empire.
And,germany was not sleeping giant,but racist socialist idiots who started two world wars and both lost thanks to their own stupidity.
FTFY.

They were racists, but they started world wars because they were socialists. It started with Bismarck.
 

ATP

Well-known member
FTFY.

They were racists, but they started world wars because they were socialists. It started with Bismarck.
True,i forget Bismarck reforms.If they remain only racist,they could win - in 1941 soviet mass surrender almost without fight,becouse they thought that germans would free them.

But,instead of giving back peasants kolchoz lands,they still keep kolchoz.And murdered most prisoners.After that,soviets were fighting again.
 

Blasterbot

Well-known member
No, blanket resources wouldn't work. Real estate would be your best bet. If there is two things conservatives want more than anything it's as follows "Peace and quiet" and "Something to pass on as a little legacy."
It would at least be something though. bluntly we don't need more land. a large amount of our land is unsettled. especially Alaska. we don't need or want a 2nd class population. our lower class is already struggling to compete with the tens of millions of illegals. most resources are actually available within our borders. they just aren't competitive in price when competing with literal slave labor and we pass environmental regulations and other such things making it even more expensive. no joke we just literally hamstring ourselves and then pretend that it was always impossible for us to be competitive.

We don't have a religion tieing us together that could be directed into a religious war. hell we don't have an ideology binding the nation together at this point really. The left has spent decades doing everything they could to dissolve it and the kerfuffles in the middle east and internally directed intelligence ops have eroded that strained sense of nationhood yet more.

most reasons countries would be driven to a foreign war don't really apply to us. it would have to be an existential threat to America itself. unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective Russia has turned out to be a paper tiger that is really just a big regional power and China has even more systemic issues than we do. so on a foreign war front we actually look like we wouldn't be threatened by it. meaning there would be little support. meaning if we get forced into it by the establishment it ends terribly.

I don't want this to end in blood. but the only other path I can see is the establishment owning up to its failings and compromising. a lovely dream but I think I got better odds with the lottery.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Funny, funny spelling mistake.

Heh. Well, I've corrected it, and various other errors I spotted after the fact. I'm sure several other errors remain.


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


So do you think we will stop sexualy mutalating children during our Marian reforms or will we have to wait for a ceasar figure to get that shit to stop?

It's hard to say. I'm tempted to argue that such nonsense is just modern-day loonie cultism, and that such extravagances will just naturally die out when things "get real", and excesses of any kind become unaffordable. Anyone remotely like Sulla, for certain, would want the elite itself to be reformed, and to make it more responsible and "dignified". So if we get something like a Sullan oligarchy, it'll be pretty austere and unforgiving of nonsense. At least more so than our current, highly "frivolous" times.

On the other hand, look at Egypt in the wake of the Hyksos ravages, at Rome (and Greece) in the latter days of the Hellenistic Era, or at China during the conclusion of the Warring States Period. Hotbeds of not just mad cultism and weird movements, but also of moral decay and all sorts of degeneracies. (In Rome, Sulla couldn't cure that, either. For that matter: neither could Marius, although to be fair, he never really got the chance.)

We may also note that as the Populares broaden their movement, that has the downside of also becoming more open to various gaggles of perhaps not-quite-worthy interlopers. Publius Clodius Pulcher was a populist, after all. That sort of example illustrates that a Marian -- and even a Caesarian -- faction may actually end up accepting various forms of... moral failings... in the name of "keeping everyone in the big tent".

It was Augustus who really cleaned house.

Although, to be fair, I'm pretty sure Caesar would have... if not "gotten rid of", then at least "put aside"... the less savoury types within his own faction, if he'd lived. Similar figures in other civilisations did so as well. (Essentially, a "Caesar" who lives longer saves the "Augustus" the trouble of having to kill a lot of objectionable people.)

...But to actually answer the question: I think certain perversities will be so associated with the establishment (which actively pushed them) that the populists will invariably hate these forever, whereas other perversities may get a blind eye until the very end. In practice, this means that Marius would be the type of man to legislate the compulsive castration of paedophiles, and Sulla would be the type of man to alter that to a death sentence ("more practical"), while Caesar would order the summary execution of "gender loonies"... and Augustus is the sort of man who would have pimps crucified for "corrupting the social order".

All of these men will be stringently opposed to abortion, by the way. If anything is going to go out of style sooner rather than later, it'll be anti-natalism in the West.


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


in 1941 soviet mass surrender almost without fight,becouse they thought that germans would free them.

But,instead of giving back peasants kolchoz lands,they still keep kolchoz.And murdered most prisoners.After that,soviets were fighting again.

You forget, perhaps, that this option really wasn't possible for the Germans under Hitler. They could have done it under the Kaiser, because back then their economic policies were only kind of stupid. But under Hitler, they could not do this... because they were socialists. Their economy relied on plunder. In international socialism, this is class-plunder. In national socialism, it is race-plunder. To exist, they must rape all neighbours and take all their stuff.

If Hitler had been nice to Slavs, he could have had allies, but his own state would have collapsed due to the lack of plunder. Indeed, his armies would starve, because German production (of everything, including food) was insufficient. So he literally just expected his armies to be like locusts in the East. To eat everything, and make the Slavs starve.

If they left food for the Slavs, they themselves would starve, because der Führer could not actually afford to feed them properly.

(I cannot stress enough that anyone on the right who thinks the Nazis were cool -- or right about anything at all -- is a complete imbecile.)


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


On the Isolationism I think it wouldn't be that hard to sell MAGA on foreign ties if you put it into terms of how it actually helps America and the American citizens. The issue people have is for decades we have hollowed out the core of our economy in favor of empowering not just allies but actively antagonistic nations to us under the guise of bringing them into the fold. it has had at best decidedly mixed results and at worst has empowered China to be our current #1 rival.

Trying to sell to MAGA that we need to send X hundred billion more to whatever country in order to spread Democracy is just farcical. Saying that we want access to the mountains for their lithium or something would be something easier to sell. still not great as we refuse to develop Alaska and it's frankly ridiculous amount of natural resources.

Elites won't try and put things in that manner though. they believe they can rile up a mob to send against their enemies if they say the correct magic words loud enough and often enough. they don't consider the consequences of it though. the words lose power when you lie too much and the anger of the mob does not simply disappear into the ether after you unleash them.

If you want an empire you have to compensate the people who make said empire possible.

I think you underestimate how much of us MAGAs is absolutely browbeaten, worldweary, and broken by the constant political forever wars that have occurred in the past 60-some-odd years.ESPECAILLY the last 20 years. It is so bad, that I do not think I speak in hyperbole when I say some would be perfectly content if the entire rest of the world (and California) just plunged into the sea and took their kingdoms and cultures with them.

The only way I see that being broken is in a truly defensive war. This means the enemy would have to gain a foothold and I'm sorry but a MAGA America driven to imperialism would not be a force of conquest and expansion. I fear it It'd be a force of desolation. America is constantly compared to a sleeping giant. What happens when the Sleeping Giant finally gets sick of constantly being disturbed?

Germany was a sleeping giant too until a myriad of factors woke it from its slumber....the end result was WWII and the Holocaust.

No, blanket resources wouldn't work. Real estate would be your best bet. If there is two things conservatives want more than anything it's as follows "Peace and quiet" and "Something to pass on as a little legacy."

It would at least be something though. bluntly we don't need more land. a large amount of our land is unsettled. especially Alaska. we don't need or want a 2nd class population. our lower class is already struggling to compete with the tens of millions of illegals. most resources are actually available within our borders. they just aren't competitive in price when competing with literal slave labor and we pass environmental regulations and other such things making it even more expensive. no joke we just literally hamstring ourselves and then pretend that it was always impossible for us to be competitive.

We don't have a religion tieing us together that could be directed into a religious war. hell we don't have an ideology binding the nation together at this point really. The left has spent decades doing everything they could to dissolve it and the kerfuffles in the middle east and internally directed intelligence ops have eroded that strained sense of nationhood yet more.

most reasons countries would be driven to a foreign war don't really apply to us. it would have to be an existential threat to America itself. unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective Russia has turned out to be a paper tiger that is really just a big regional power and China has even more systemic issues than we do. so on a foreign war front we actually look like we wouldn't be threatened by it. meaning there would be little support. meaning if we get forced into it by the establishment it ends terribly.

I don't want this to end in blood. but the only other path I can see is the establishment owning up to its failings and compromising. a lovely dream but I think I got better odds with the lottery.

The truly crucial thing is that the current generation has lived through the errors of neoconservatism, which advocates the dumbest form of interventionism. This is where @KilroywasNOTHere is perhaps misjudging things a bit, by looking at what is currently the MAGA belief. But you need to understand why it is that belief. Two, three decades of dumb interventionism have simply taught people to hate neocon interventionism.

But now consider what two, three decades of dumb non-interventionism will teach the next generation.

Imagine, for a moment, a fairly bad short-to-mid-term future. Ukraine loses, after Trump cuts all aid. Russia keeps its gains. Rump-Ukraine joins NATO, but is hardly happy. Russia is still fucked up. Its conquests are ruined lands, unprofitable for over a decade. Soon enough, Putin croaks. He leaves behind a wrecked economy with a whole generation dead or maimed. He has no solid succession plan in place. Russia, for all that it has "won", collapses into gangsterism-- like the '90s on steroids. By this time, it has become a total Chinese vassal. Dependent. Controlled. The Chinese sphere now borders on Poland. And on the Eastern end, the retreat of the USA and the evident weakness and discord of NATO inspire the CCP to annex Taiwan. It exerts vast economic pressure to sway Singapore into its orbit. There is no Western response. Not long after, Turkey betrays "weak and useless NATO", and -- funded by China -- commences a streak of conquests. It occupies, most crucially, Cyprus and the Suez Canal. The Chinese alliance system now has a choke-hold on both ends of Eurasia.

We have come to the mid-point of the century. And only now, when the enemy has realised every advantage that it might have dreamed to possess, does it dawn on the Americans how foolish they have been. Eurasia-Africa is a world-island. And the Americas are their counter-island. But the former is much bigger. Has vaster numbers. Has greater quantities of all resources. If it comes to a world war between these two opposing world-islands... the big one wins.

It is on to this stage that a Marius emerges. It is here that he makes his mark. For he is, more than anything, more than the domestic reformer that he can thereafter become, more than all epithets that history may bestow upon him---

He is is the one that beats them back.

It won't be the big world-war. Both sides want to avoid that, for even nominal victory wouyld be hideously costly. No, this is a war fought in the border regions. This Marius will grasp that. He'll go for the Turks. Perhaps for Western Russia. Not China itself. But he'll beat their vassals, and end their choke-hold on one end of Eurasia, so that they may not wholly possess it. Part of that is about resources, and part of it is about real estate, but at the heart of it... it's about survival. It's about getting back to first place. To secure a winning position, or at least a non-losing one. To force a world-order where world war means mutual destruction. And to ensure that, you must deny China the resources held by Western Eurasia, and by Africa. If they possess all of the larger world-island... they win. The smaller world-island loses. The world becomes a Chinese Empire.

I advocate for defeating Russia now, because I see this coming. Because if we go isolationist now, then China wins. Then China's world-system functionally extends into Europe. And we'll have to fight them back to the Urals later. But we beat Russia now, and absorb its Western regions, then that border will at least be settled early on. Fighting the China-backed Turks later on will be all the easier for it.

This is why isolationism is retarded. Your enemies are not isolationist. They are imperialist. They will not relent. What we do not take, they will. Retreat weakens you and strengthens them. That is the core lesson that the coming decades of isolationist dumbassery will have to teach the world.
 
Last edited:

Simonbob

Well-known member
This is why isolationism is retarded. Your enemies are not isolationist. They are imperialist. They will not relent. What we d not take, they will. Retreat weakens you and strengthens the enemy. That is the core lesson that the coming decades of isolationist dumbassery will have to teach the world.

Perhaps.

I'll even say "likely". But.... Right now? With the leaders we have now? We can't do that. Not want, flat out can't.


So, assuming you're looking at things right, I'd say Russia wins, or, rather, China wins. For a while, at least. There were ways to avoid it, ways I, or even the MAGA base would have no major issue with, but the current leaders aren't capable of doing something so useful, or effective.


And, so the wheels of history turn.
 
This is why isolationism is retarded. Your enemies are not isolationist. They are imperialist. They will not relent. What we d not take, they will. Retreat weakens you and strengthens the enemy. That is the core lesson that the coming decades of isolationist dumbassery will have to teach the world.

And what would stop that imperialist America from going "You know it only takes 10'000 people to keep the species alive and we have *insert x millions here* alone." Speciescide is great for the one committing it. All of the real-estate and resources for you and no more enemies because there is no one left to be enemies with.

If it were anyone else we'd call that evil or are we at a point now where we declare the Nullenburg trials a farce and say that Germany's only true crime during WWII was getting defeated? I mean heck if we are going to go. "Conquer or die why not just drop our entire nuclear payload on the world?

Not everything is circular history. Honestly I truly believe that the only reason we as a species have lasted this long is the result of Divine/Supernatural intervention, or in other words We are still here because God is patient and suffers that none shall be lost. What happens when that patience runs out?
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Perhaps.

I'll even say "likely". But.... Right now? With the leaders we have now? We can't do that. Not want, flat out can't.


So, assuming you're looking at things right, I'd say Russia wins, or, rather, China wins. For a while, at least. There were ways to avoid it, ways I, or even the MAGA base would have no major issue with, but the current leaders aren't capable of doing something so useful, or effective.


And, so the wheels of history turn.

I fear that you're quite right about that. I also fear the price that this will exact down the line.


...But perhaps, there is a silver lining. One that also answers @KilroywasNOTHere's rather hyperbolic suggestion. If America goes isolationist for a while, it will show the rest of the West what a world without America looks like. It may already be doing that: Trump's remarks yesterday have prompted Germany to vow an increase in military spending today. A world without America looks, even to the fools running the show today, like a scary place.

Maybe, the ironic consequence of a few decades of American isolationism will be that it makes the rest of the Western world beg for the American Empire to arise and save them. Perhaps, certain hard lessons must be experienced, and there's just no way around it.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top