|
Post by LowKey on Oct 3, 2016 14:30:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by redeyes on Oct 4, 2016 5:14:07 GMT
We only escape being an empire at present because all power is not vested in one person. As presidential powers continue to expand we may become an empire in the future. The powers that be want us to be an ogliarchy or plutocracy with the illusion that we are a republic. They may have already achieved their goal in fact. They have certainly achieved their goal in effect for some time.
|
|
|
Post by redeyes on Oct 22, 2016 10:56:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Nov 27, 2016 9:32:38 GMT
In late January of the year 98 AD, after decades of turmoil, instability, inflation, and war, Romans welcomed a prominent solider named Trajan as their new Emperor.
Prior to Trajan, Romans had suffered immeasurably, from the madness of Nero to the ruthless autocracy of Domitian, to the chaos of 68-69 AD when, in the span of twelve months, Rome saw four separate emperors.
Trajan was welcome relief and was generally considered by his contemporaries to be among the finest emperors in Roman history.
Trajan’s successors included Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, both of whom were also were also reputed as highly effective rulers.
But that was pretty much the end of Rome’s good luck.
The Roman Empire’s enlightened rulers may have been able to make some positive changes and delay the inevitable, but they could not prevent it.
Rome still had far too many systemic problems.
The cost of administering such a vast empire was simply too great. There were so many different layers of governments—imperial, provincial, local—and the upkeep was debilitating.
Rome had also installed costly infrastructure and created expensive social welfare programs like the alimenta, which provided free grain to the poor.
Not to mention, endless wars had taken their toll on public finances.
Romans were no longer fighting conventional enemies like Carthage, and its famed General Hannibal bringing elephants across the Alps.
Instead, Rome’s greatest threat had become the Germanic barbarian tribes, peoples viewed as violent and uncivilized who would stop at nothing to destroy Roman way of life.
Corruption and destructive bureaucracy were increasingly rampant.
And the worse imperial finances became, the more the government tried to “fix” everything by passing debilitating regulation and debasing the currency.
In his seminal work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon wrote:
“The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long.”
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Nov 27, 2016 11:05:59 GMT
IMO we were already an empire, we've been one since WWII at the very latest and some would have a good argument for the process starting to begin as soon as the Spanish-American War ended and we received Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines in exchange for accepting their surrender.
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Dec 6, 2016 15:45:38 GMT
This is from the first few paragraphs of a Washington Times article titled Obama becoming increasingly powerless as world allies fall to populist uprisings
"The resignation of Italy’s prime minister Monday marked the abrupt downfall of the third key European partner of President Obama this year, as the president becomes increasingly powerless to confront a populist wave sweeping both sides of the Atlantic and challenging traditional U.S. alliances.
Matteo Renzi’s surrender in Italy came just seven weeks after Mr. Obama toasted the 41-year-old prime minister at a gilded State Dinner at the White House for possessing “the vision and the values that can carry Italy, and Europe, forward.” Mr. Renzi submitted his resignation after Italian voters resoundingly rejected his proposals for political reform in a Sunday referendum that became a judgment on Mr. Renzi and his internationalist stance.
Less than a week earlier, French President Francois Hollande — another key partner with Mr. Obama on issues such as fighting the Islamic State — announced he would not seek re-election. He was battling low approval ratings, high unemployment and a rising tide of conservative and populist forces.
Mr. Hollande’s announcement came less than six months after British Prime Minister David Cameron resigned in the wake of British voters’ decision to leave the European Union. Mr. Obama had traveled to London before the referendum and urged the British people to remain in the EU, to no avail."
Historical definitions of 'populism' aside, that term is currently (it seems to me) used as a perjorative. Journalists and op-ed folks use it to paint a picture of the ignorant, unwashed masses holding pitchforks and torches, lashing out at things they are too simple to understand.
So, do you think the elites will at some point get a clue that the policies they are pushing are NOT WANTED by the majority of the people they supposedly represent? I've been a supervisor at several different jobs (as well as in the military), and if I was doing something that was causing serious grumbling amongst the folks, I always tried to look at what was happening to see if it was ME who was on the wrong side of the argument. Sometimes it wasn't, but sometimes it was. And if it WAS me, I have generally tried to do the whole "OK guys, I hear you, you don't like the way this is working. I get it. What can we do to fix this problem?" instead of assuming the guys/gals I was supervising must be the problem, unable to grasp my brilliant plan and get on board.
I'm just an ordinary, ignorant, blue-collar guy, though. If I had more money and education perhaps I would be enlightened enough to know that it must be the fault of EVERYBODY ELSE that they don't like what we're doing. They're just too stupid to understand how great it actually is!
Anyway, I suppose my question is why the folks in charge aren't getting that the policies they espouse are pissing off most of their people, or at least the people who give a shit enough to get off their sofa and go vote? At what point do you become so self-important that you begin to view your people as the equivalent of toddlers, too stupid and impulsive to know what is good for them? For fuck's sake, some Democratic strategists and talking heads are saying that if their party would just become MORE liberal they would win more elections, this despite what appears to be overwhelming election results to the contrary!
|
|
|
Post by scbrian on Dec 6, 2016 18:59:19 GMT
I'm just an ordinary, ignorant, blue-collar guy, though. If I had more money and education perhaps I would be enlightened enough to know that it must be the fault of EVERYBODY ELSE that they don't like what we're doing. They're just too stupid to understand how great it actually is! Dont sell yourself short - ordinary, "ignorant" blue-collar guys just spoke out and changed the course of history and the United States... As more of these OIBC guys speak out in their own countries, history will be changed, again, and again. It's great to live in a dream world of academia, or be surrounded by toadies who are hell bent on taking everything you say and carrying it forth like Moses coming down the mountain. But sooner or later, a reality check will be made. Generally by OIBC guys...
|
|
|
Post by as556 on Dec 8, 2016 16:15:13 GMT
The pen may have won this time but don't let your swords get dull..
|
|