[Aer]

Societal decay. Usually two words you associate with opulent societies before their downfall. The loss of societal rigor, along with proper gender roles, has undone societies before, and it will in the future.

Surely there has been a thread about this, but ever since my return to America I have noticed many a disturbing trend within the subculture of this country. I know this has been attempted and failed many times before, but my knowledge of the Roman Empire is vast and I see many parallels.

I realize I'll have many detractors, saying that Roman imperial history has no parallel whatsoever to American history, and that's fine. Everyone's entitled, but how many times has history repeated itself in the past? How many times have empires fallen due to internal corruption rather than outside influence? Many. Humans never change. Technology may, but in truth, there are no evolutionary differences between us and Romans.

Here are a couple parallels where they apply:

1. Lack of Expansion in both Empires

In the latter half of the 2nd century AD, the Roman Empire ceased to expand. Trajan had just conquered Dacia and Mesopotamia (albeit for a short time), and all was well within the empire. Opulence and wealth was pouring in from the east, and the patricians within Roman society were the first ones to see it. However, in the mid-2nd century, some territorial protectionism was to be done. Hadrian built his wall in the north of Britain, the limes was set on the Rhine, and fortifications were dug in. This may have signaled the onset of prosperous times within the empire (peace, mostly), but it also signaled stagnation.

For the next 2 centuries, the Roman empire was beset by issues such as economic stagnation, internal strife (especially in the third century) and wealth conglomeration in the hands of few began. The owners of the latifundia became extremely wealthy, profiting off the multitude of slaves even in the 5th century when all was spiraling downward. Where do we see parallels to this in the current era in America?

In 1802, as you all were taught in history class, Thomas Jefferson coined a phrase which you all know very well and was deeply ingrained in American society. A society based off the idealism of Manifest Destiny. This was truly utilized as a way to make the overpopulated East Coast less overpopulated, and send the poor who had nothing out west in droves to keep the economy relatively stable in the east. This also brought upon the era of Robber Barons such as Carnegie and Rockefeller, who used this cheap labor in the midwest (Ohio, Eastern Penn) for their own wealth amassing. Comparisons to the owners of the latifundia are rife with similarities, especially the fact that cheap labor is never sustainable and eventually the government will catch up to your power amassing and attempt to stop you (see restrictions on lasseiz-faire capitalism in the 1910s and see Tiberius' failed attempt to limit the power). In the future, these Robber Barons would adapt and become CEO's of Fortune 500's and the latifundia owners would become feudal lords.



So my point is with Comparison 1 is this:

What happens when an expansionist government and society ceases to expand? What happens within the society when wealth just stops flowing in from all angles? How does policy change when there are natural borders to block expansionism? And most of all, how does a society built on that premise change itself in order to survive?

We shall see.

Comparisons 2 and 3 will be drawn up soon, and those are much more controversial.

[gfly]

They turn inward. Participation in world wars, shipbuilding to project power and imperialism the cold war can all be debated as to necessary or not. What you need to notice is everything now is being built against the people of america. Spying, ndaa war on drugs terror etc. Podunk police departments with tanks. Gun control, the recent anti political protest law. All the great power of america is pointing inward against Americans.

[Aer]

Here's a much more controversial comparison:

2. The Internet and Technology vs. Organized Religion

This may come as a startling surprise, but look how far technology has taken us. We are a few people who would probably never meet before discussing ideals which probably wouldn't be discussed aside from a group of close friends. This is not bashing technology, just comparing it. I'm going to break this down into a few key parts.

Comparison A: Social Media and Mass Media to Organized Churches
The onset of mass media and organized media has been heralded as a gateway to more information, along with enlightenment. But alas, people tend not to expand their own mind and focus themselves into a small information window. Liberals in America go towards MSNBC, following to a T what some politicians say and do, and being inundated by information which most have no idea what it means.

Think about churches in the 4th century at the reign on Constantine or Theodosius. How many people could read the Bible? Very, very few. How many people could disseminate information? The powerful few. The ones who would afford to put their children through great ecclesiastical schools. Social media is mostly people just posting news articles from those sources. It only strengthens the great few, just as mass media does, but on a more personal level.

b. Opiate of the Masses
This has been said many times before, but especially by Communists in the 19th century. How many times have you heard "Religion is an opiate of the masses!!" by atheists?

Well let me ask you this. How many times have you heard "Technology is an opiate of the masses!".

Think about it for a second. Technology caters to everyone, whether it be the hyper social 16 year old girls (facebook, twitter, pinterest, instagram) or it be the NEETs of society (World of Warcraft, 4chan, etc). The church was the same way. The people who withdraw from society could whenever they needed (monks within monasteries to live a sterile life, much like how basement dwellers live that same sterile life focusing on things which may or may not be real), and social people could congregate whenever they needed to discuss things (church on Sunday).

Most of all, it is an escape. We would be the Mithradatic Cultists within organized religion seeking to undermine it, however. Which brings me to my last point.

c. Calling Out Technology (or Religion) is Blasphemy

When have you last heard someone become popular for their shunning of technology and total lack of connection to the outside world?

Let's face it, even those Discovery Channel guys who put themselves through extreme challenges in nature are just that; actors. They just do it to make money and make themselves more famous, just as the monks of the 3rd century and 4th century did (St. Simeon Stylites, for one).

Even so, when did you ever see someone who was very popular who lacked technology whatsoever? They just can't anymore. It is necessary to be under the sway of it. Anyone who does this is "stuck in the past" much like the pagans were called in the 5th century (pagani literally means country folk, or backward people). There is no real taboo on it, just a society of peer pressure, which does more to people than any social taboo would.

This may be very unpopular, I know. The similarities are just startling though. Similarity 3 will be posted in a few hours, it is the most expected one.

[Sombro]

Quote:

Youth of all races and backgrounds in lockstep fiddle with their cell phones as they walk about. Jeans are an unspoken American uniform — both for Wall Street grandees and for the homeless on the sidewalks. Left, right, liberal, conservative, professor, and ditch digger have similar-looking Facebook accounts.

If Rome quieted the people with public spectacles and cheap grain from the provinces, so too Americans of all classes keep glued to favorite video games and reality-TV shows. Fast food is both cheap and tasty. All that for now is preferable to rioting and revolt.

Like Rome, America apparently can coast for a long time on the fumes of its wonderful political heritage and economic dynamism — even if both are little understood or appreciated by most who still benefit from them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/35...vis-hanson

[CactusCat589]

I've let several volumes on the history of the Roman empire. To summarize some of what I remember:

Economic Parallels

What we've been doing to the dollar parallels that of the Roman denarius and antoninianus:





The debasement of currency is antithetical to freedom, and it's been ongoing since the 1970s. You could argue that the free market died in 1913, its name is evoked only to describe the criminality of our financial banking sector to push a totalitarian agenda, even more centralization. The supremacy of our military is what keeps the dollar as the world reserve currency and backs our economy as the Roman's legions did, but simultaneously it takes a trillion dollars to fund every year and is crucifying our prosperity.

In addition to the hidden tax of inflation, outright tax increases mirror that of the Roman Empire. In the last days, soldiers were literally physically present in the markets, to extract taxes from every transaction. Similarly, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, expiration of the payroll tax cuts, the imposition of Obamacare.

Also, historically low birthrates afflicted both nations. The unfunded liabilities of pensions promised to the urban cohorts, regular army legionaries, Praetorian guards, on top of their base salary (which skyrocketed the more chaotic things became) eventually resulted in the black swan event when the demographics finally caught up with fiscal mismanagement (not enough people were born to enter the base of the Ponzi scheme), and loss of confidence in the currency.

Another was the weakening of national identity. The Romans' birthrate plummeted while the non-Roman and barbarian populations rose. They had their own version of cultural Marxism/destruction of traditional values in the influence of Greek culture with Scipio Africanus (Graecophilia was seen as hedonistic and those protective of distinct Roman culture such as Cato the Elder saw the old ways wane). This too is reflected in our society today with mass immigration, welfare lineages, feminism, progressive interpretation of the Constitution etc.

Starting with Tiberius and Caligula, it became normal for new emperors for buy the loyalty of their armies to secure their ascension to the throne with gold aurei. In the heyday of the empire, under Caesar and Augustus, the army was paid from spoils of war. But as military fatigue and corruption set in, the lack of expansion and conquest exposed the unsustainabe nature of the system. I wonder if there were ancient forerunners to the modern Austrian economists who were warning the leaders lol.

Ludwig von Mises based much of his research on the monetary policies of the emperors. Under Constantine, currency reform was enacted, unfunded liabilities were nonexistent, he didn't impose price controls which would've disrupted free market equilibrium, and as a result, the Roman Empire enjoyed centuries of prosperity and were able to handle the threat of barbarian threats.

The historians' records of how successive emperor paid hundreds of thousands more than the previous to the army and debased the currency a little more, and the excavated coins were weighed with their silver/gold content, which declined throughout.

You see the same dynamic of more promises of welfare, entitlements, etc. every election cycle, more socialism, diminishing labor force and tax base and greater income disparity as a result of ZIRP and the Fed's policies, making the problem worse.

[Aer]

3. Moral Decay

I am not one to call out the media on being corrupt whatsoever, or the media of being hypocrites and lying to us, but embellishment and calculated decisions are afoot here. The media, in fact, is not corrupt, but rather is following the trend of the time period.

The problem is at more of a societal base than a media base. The media (mainstream, right wing, what have you) is only following what their viewers want to hear. Rather than reporting the news in such a manner that is truly important to their viewers' own lives, the news focuses more on subjects which are distant, and the lives of people who are popular. At the most minute level, it is about the money rather than accuracy.

Which brings me to another point: Why do so many people these days show disdain for the government? Why does everyone seem to have a certain opinion on how the country should be run?

In truth, no one knows how to run the country. In plain truth, it is popular to bash the government. Popular idealism has an effect on us which is small, but at the macro level it manifests itself as public opinion.

The Roman government was at the same crossroads in the 3rd century. Marred by decades of weak rule, public opinion was strongly unfavorable towards the government. Splintering began to occur regionally with the Palmyrene and Gallic factions, as we see today (albeit at a different type of level) with the Republicans and the Democrats. This separatism ideology (think Tea Party, extreme left wing feminists) express their opinions freely, because in truth, they have nothing else to occupy their minds with.

They have roads. They have freedom. They have safety.

So what to do? Complain about things they don't have because their minds are filled with hedonism and lost ideologies. Betterment of themselves rather than society as a whole.



I have noticed one other disturbing trend in the last 20 years. Notice how there is an extreme amount of news on the Apple IPhone 6, and how the small technological advances will be revolutionary?...

Well let me ask you this. How many times have you heard about the ISS or the Large Hadron Collider's discoveries?




Hedonism, my friends, is the rot of the walls of the building which is society. And if left unchecked, slowly but surely, rot causes these walls, once magnificent and glorious, to come crumbling down in a heap upon themselves.

Heed my warnings gentlemen, and notice these things whenever you turn on CNN and Fox or when you log into facebook.

[Nolecbo]

(08-08-2013 11:55 AM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  

The supremacy of our military is what keeps the dollar as the world reserve currency and backs our economy as the Roman's legions did, but simultaneously it takes a trillion dollars to fund every year and is crucifying our prosperity.

I am not saying everything is fine, I am not not a Greenback cheerleader, but I would differ on this. The dollar is the world's reserve currency because of a lack of competitors.

Euros? You haven't been paying attention.
Yuan*? A currency has to be globally traded to be the reserve currency.

Basket of Asian currencies? Gold? Bitcoin? The dollar might lose the tinfoil hat crowd, but consider this fact:

We have a $16 trillion dollar debt and STILL we sell our bonds at (close to) zero.

We would be SO much better off putting our effort and ingenuity against the real problems instead of pretend problems.


* Some will chime in with 'this will change soon'. If is does change, answer this question - would you actually put your retirement into a such a non-transparent currency?


   

[Grit]

Yeah this thread is making me wonder how much TV is subsidized. If the masses lose their entertainment, that would be the biggest awakening.

would seem stupid if the government didn't make mass media its number one priority

[CactusCat589]

Tinfoil hat? Germany, Russia, China, Venezuela, India, have all repatriated their gold and been acquiring it in droves. France invaded Mali for it. The IMF imposes austerity in its bailout conditions for the express purpose of acquiring gold on behalf of the Troika. Why don't you ask Vladimir Putin or Angela Merkel why they'd waste so much money on such a worthless barbarous relic? This is all very well reported even by the mainstream media such as Forbes, Bloomberg, BusinessInsider, the Economist, etc. Absolutely I'm in gold and silver.

The EU has yet to breakup despite the insistence that it would. Greece did not leave the euro, in fact, not one member country has. The renminbi in the span between 2010 and 2013 has been internationalized from settling 0% of international trade to 12%. The rest of the world from Australia, the UK, France, Switzerland, Brazil, India, Russia, South Africa, have all made bilateral free trade agreements *explicitly* to circumvent the dollar. The rest of the world can't offload $3 trillion's worth of debt they know will never get repaid and are getting a pittance on interest for without getting nuked, so they're doing it a few tens of billions at a time.

Gold and silver are manipulated here as I fully lay out here, step-by-step: http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-15889-...#pid504652

I explain how the petrodollar mandates direct investment in our debt by OPEC and its customers: http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-26474-...pid502628, so indeed we've used our military to enforce dollar hegemony.

Both are well-known in financial circles.

Quote:

We have a $16 trillion dollar debt and STILL we sell our bonds at (close to) zero.

Well, I think implications of the above two factors are obvious.

Second, the 10-year treasury yield was 1.86% at the beginning of 2013: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/...year=2013. Today, it is 2.61%, despite the mainstream canard that "rates can never rise" and Paul Krugman calling people voicing such concerns Very Serious People. And because the Fed monetizes the debt but doesn't create the money for the interest, that rise of 80 basis points costs you and I another $100 billion in debt service via taxes. Real wealth.

Why does this spike keep happening whenever one QE program ends, whenever the Fed tries to conduct reverse repo operations, whenever Bernanke and the FOMC come out with bad news?

The basis of quantitative easing and the sustainability of our "privately" owned debt is predicated on an infinite continuation of QE. This is called frontrunning the Fed. Meanwhile, the actual economy has been contracting. This is why the markets took a nosedive the moment Bernanke suggested he might might taper next year in May. Because by guaranteeing that the Fed will buy bonds every month, it takes the risk out of holding bonds, because Ben will always accept it and give you a nice return. The moment that changes, it ends.

So it is no exaggeration to say that to tighten monetary policy would mean the death of the U.S. economy. It is that bad. I say this as matter-of-factly as when I say the sky is blue.

Furthermore, our Senate and House have surreptitiously prepared for the rise in the 10-year treasury by linking our student loan rates to it. If you followed the Obama administrations plans for "reform", then you know that they are actively preparing to gain additional revenue off the backs of our college students.

I (well, my dad) still does Elliott-wave daytrading and picks stocks, but we're cost-averaging into the precious metals, foreign stocks, etc. every month. And we have a fixed-rate mortgage:

Federal Advisory Council, May 17, 2013 Minutes report Wrote:

Uncertainty exists about how markets will reestablish normal valuations when the Fed withdraws from the market. It will likely be difficult to unwind policy accommodation, and the end of monetary easing may be painful for consumers and businesses. Given the Fed’s balance sheet increase of approximately $2.5 trillion since 2008, the Fed may now be perceived as integral to the housing finance system.

http://federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fac-20130517.pdf

No, Ron Paul and Peter Schiff did not hack the Federal Reserve website, that is Fed itself finally admitting that there is no exit strategy.

Quote:

Current low bond yields are disruptive to management of fixed-income portfolios, retirement funds, consumer savings, and retirement planning.

And the Fed makes no secret that its policies are hurting retirees and people planning to retire. The logic is simple: the Fed is debasing the dollar, so the value of dollar-denominated assets are eroding. Right now. They can pile as much financial complexity, derivatives instruments, and change the CPI all they want, it won't change the bottom line.

The other way out, of course, is war, if you've been following the saber rattling vs. Russia and China over Iran and Syria. This is what happens when you centrally plan a paper, debt-based economy.

And yeah, if such a scenario occurs and the U.S. is winning, then I'll save for retirement in dollars (although that would be the least of our worries.)

Quote:

We would be SO much better off putting our effort and ingenuity against the real problems instead of pretend problems.

What, like gender inequality, climate change, legalizing pot? The single most potentially devastating threat to the livelihood of all Americans is a pretend problem? The hundreds of thousands have *literally* died to preserve this system? The traders who committed suicide when silver was taken from $21 an ounce to $8 dollars in 2008? The fact that as a direct result of the Fed's policy of ZIRP and inflation, over 40% of all Americans now have spent their savings until they don't have a single penny left, and are dependent on a welfare system that in turn depends on even more debasement of currency? The fact that the Fed has sparked a currency war with the rest of the world? The fact that the federal government has set up a police state because it is fairly obvious that our economy will collapse if this continues? All pretend problems not affecting hundreds of millions / billions of people?

[Aer]

(08-08-2013 01:45 PM)Grit Wrote:  

Yeah this thread is making me wonder how much TV is subsidized. If the masses lose their entertainment, that would be the biggest awakening.

would seem stupid if the government didn't make mass media its number one priority

They would find other ways. There has never been a "well fed" revolution.

[Tex Pro]

I don't totally buy the "decline and fall" hypothesis for Rome. Rome had several declines and always rose again. I am more of the mind that Rome transformed at the end of its empire.

To me, the real reason Rome ended was the invasion of the barbarian hordes. The sacks of Rome led to it ending with the King of Italy (a Germanic soldier). The Middle Ages were brought about when the Germanic tribesmen overtook large parts of the Roman Empire and it fractured into fiefdoms.

I recommend listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode "Thor's Angels" on itunes. It is free and in it he has a great quote from a historian that said that "Rome delegated away its empire."

[Samseau]

(08-13-2013 03:29 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

To me, the real reason Rome ended was the invasion of the barbarian hordes. The sacks of Rome led to it ending with the King of Italy (a Germanic soldier). The Middle Ages were brought about when the Germanic tribesmen overtook large parts of the Roman Empire and it fractured into fiefdoms.

By the time the Barbarians sacked Rome, most of the Romans had left Rome. Rome had been losing power and influence very steadily for nearly a hundred years before it got sacked.

It is easy to see this decline if you look at the debasement of their currencies, the perpetual increase of military wages and reliance on professional mercenaries, and the decline of Roman birthrates and population.

Most of the richest Romans had already relocated to Constantinople by the time Rome was sacked.

[Samseau]

This thread is fucking awesome, by the way.

[Walderschmidt]

(08-14-2013 12:57 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

This thread is fucking awesome, by the way.

Agreed. Rep point for OP from me.

Wald

[Aer]

(08-13-2013 03:29 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

I don't totally buy the "decline and fall" hypothesis for Rome. Rome had several declines and always rose again. I am more of the mind that Rome transformed at the end of its empire.

To me, the real reason Rome ended was the invasion of the barbarian hordes. The sacks of Rome led to it ending with the King of Italy (a Germanic soldier). The Middle Ages were brought about when the Germanic tribesmen overtook large parts of the Roman Empire and it fractured into fiefdoms.

I recommend listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode "Thor's Angels" on itunes. It is free and in it he has a great quote from a historian that said that "Rome delegated away its empire."

You have a solid opinion. I was taught this fact in many of my history textbooks in college, but my opinions still differ due to the fact that:

1. The Roman Empire was built off delegation, alongside cultural amalgamation in the first place. When the Romans conquered a territory (let's say Thrace) they would send a proconsul in to maintain order, but let the people do as they pleased if they paid taxes. They would also change the gods to fit more of a Roman Pantheon thereby using religion as another controlling factor. They would then allow self rule, but invest some money into infrastructure (roads, temples, governmental offices). This was done for the vast majority of the territories, so why did it fail in the end? Answer:

2. This theory sounds a bit Gibbon-ish, but Christianity, along with the decay of moral values and lack of any "Romanization" done within the last hundred or so years prior led to social instability in the 4th century.

Think about this; the Goths at Adrianople never saw the Romanization process which the provinces 200 years prior in Dacia did. They weren't there for the roads being built, or even the new Christian churches. They simply were put into a province where there were existing benefits, but they simply had no connection to the Romans.

The Dacians, on the other hand, saw Romanization at it's peak stages by Trajan and Hadrian, and look at them now! They still speak a Romance language!

The lack of Romanization of the barbarians in the 4th and 5th centuries led to a more fragmented cultural identity. Even though the majority of Goths were converted to Christianity, it was the wrong brand, Arianism. They were not truly adapted to Roman society, and along with the negligible treatment by empire, was what caused the horrific defeat at Adrianople, along with the oncoming ransacking of territories.

[Quintus Curtius]

Comparisons between modern America and Rome are more valid than many people would care to admit.

The basic reasons for Rome's collapse lay in the people, the strife between social classes, her economic decline, the despotism of her government, the crushing tax burden, and the endless wars.

After Hadrian, a serious population decline begins to become noticeable in the West. Mass importation of barbarians by the emperors after Hadrian makes it clear that depopulation was a serious matter. Aurelius even enrolled criminal, gladiators, and slaves into his army's ranks. The emperor Pertinax even offered farms for free in Italy to anyone willing to till them; this gives an idea of how serious the problems were. In Greece the depopulation had been going on for a long time. One of the emperor Septimus Severus's laws makes specific reference to shortages of men. While the Greeks and Romans were decreasing, Germanic and Asiatic barbarians were increasing. (Sound familiar?)

The population decline was caused by increasing poverty, sexual excesses, infanticide, and family limitation. Disease, revolutions, and wars claimed more people. The plague of 260-265 was devastating and affected nearly every family in the Western Empire. Everywhere the same phenomena was observed: the best men married latest, died soonest, and had the fewest or no children. (Sound familiar?)

Long periods of prosperity and peace weakened the spirit of Rome in its heyday. The dole corrupted the poor, and wealth and luxury corrupted the rich. Barbarian multiplication within the Empire meant that foreign strains of people began to replace the Italic stock with ethnic groups that had little sympathy for, and no understanding of, the classic culture of Greece and Rome.

Moral decay followed the economic decay. Freedom to practice any vice meant that every vice was practiced by the rich, with the expected results. At the same time, the political process marginalized the masses of foreigners in the big cities. Closed out to participation in government, the masses turned to sexual license as its only means of expression. Wealth and comfort in Italy bred corruption, license, and the abandonment of the martial virtues of the old republic.

The growth and spread of Christianity also fatally undermined the Empire. Edward Gibbon summarized this sentiment in his history with the sentence, “I have described the triumph of barbarism and religion.” Rome's great martial traditions were undermined by a religion preaching the virtues of peace and gentleness. And the people, tired of decades of war, listened. The decay of the old paganism was bound up with the fate of the Roman state. As paganism declined, so did Rome. Christianity undermined the state by demanding its followers to ignore the imperial government and turn inward. An oriental mysticism descended upon the consciousness of the West, and left it unable to resist the attacks of hostile tribes on all sides: Goths, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Parthians, etc. The best men began to seek a career in the Church, not in the Roman administration.

On the economic front, Rome faced serious problems it could never correct. The collapse of the latifundia in Italy, the failure of Italy to compete economically with the provinces, the loss of precious metals to the East, the predatory taxation, and a stifling caste system meant that Rome entered terminal decline after 300 A.D.

On the political front, increasing despotism by the emperors meant that the average citizen had no incentive to be interested in government. Civic sense was destroyed. (Sound familiar?). The only way to express political will was by violence. Centralized power in Rome began to cede more and more power to the provinces as rebellious generals and potentates usurped what had been the exclusive power of the emperor in Rome. The armies of Rome were no longer Roman armies: they were composed of subject peoples, chiefly barbarians. And these people cared little for Rome, only for their own plunder and enrichment. Left to fend for themselves, the provinces preferred—understandably—to elect their own governments. The empire began to break apart.

This picture has many analogues with America of the present day. The analogy is not perfect, but there are enough similarities to make us sit up and take note.

[Tex Pro]

Good post, Quintus.

Yes, the similarities between Rome the USA are striking. The founders of the USA had Rome in mind when they started this country. They probably chose to make this country a republic in order to emulate Rome, after all they didn't set up a parliamentary system because they disliked the British Empire. Of course, this leads to a question: Will the USA suffer the same fate as Rome?

If so, then the USA is doomed to break up into smaller states through secession.

[iknowexactly]

(08-08-2013 10:29 AM)Aer Wrote:  

Think about it for a second. Technology caters to everyone, whether it be the hyper social 16 year old girls (facebook, twitter, pinterest, instagram) or it be the NEETs of society (World of Warcraft, 4chan, etc). The church was the same way.

Interesting essay, but I feel that all the Facewhore/Twitter shit is not socializing really, it's operating computers for free for the Matrix.

"The goal of capitalism is to reduce all human interaction to the cash nexus" - Leon Day

140 characters is a far lower {bandwidth} form of "social communication" than when people wrote letters in the 18th century. there's LESS social communication.

[iknowexactly]

(08-23-2013 09:05 PM)Aer Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:29 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

I don't totally buy the "decline and fall" hypothesis for Rome. Rome had several declines and always rose again. I am more of the mind that Rome transformed at the end of its empire.

To me, the real reason Rome ended was the invasion of the barbarian hordes. The sacks of Rome led to it ending with the King of Italy (a Germanic soldier). The Middle Ages were brought about when the Germanic tribesmen overtook large parts of the Roman Empire and it fractured into fiefdoms.

I recommend listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode "Thor's Angels" on itunes. It is free and in it he has a great quote from a historian that said that "Rome delegated away its empire."

You have a solid opinion. I was taught this fact in many of my history textbooks in college, but my opinions still differ due to the fact that:

1. The Roman Empire was built off delegation, alongside cultural amalgamation in the first place. When the Romans conquered a territory (let's say Thrace) they would send a proconsul in to maintain order, but let the people do as they pleased if they paid taxes. They would also change the gods to fit more of a Roman Pantheon thereby using religion as another controlling factor. They would then allow self rule, but invest some money into infrastructure (roads, temples, governmental offices). This was done for the vast majority of the territories, so why did it fail in the end? Answer:

2. This theory sounds a bit Gibbon-ish, but Christianity, along with the decay of moral values and lack of any "Romanization" done within the last hundred or so years prior led to social instability in the 4th century.

I think you know more about this than me, but we should examine: If Xtianity weakened Rome, what was the cause of the popularity of it? Ideas and social movements don't just happen out of nowhere, there has to be a motivation for them.

My understanding is that Christianity is a religion that appealed to the slave majority in Rome, along with the emerging consciousness of the value of the individual. This may be the first harbinger of the Enlightenment, where all people had rights-- except for the early Christians, the rebellious idea was that all people had a Soul.

Imagine, what an intoxicating idea, that a lowly slave, abused at every level if the owner was cruel, had some inherent value and an all-powerful God-- a new, improved model over any single member of the Roman pantheon-- that new improved God cared about YOU, because YOU were special and had value.

My limited understanding of the history leads me to the idea that when you have people in your empire that know full well they have no place in the continuation of the Empire, their decreasing commitment will erode it.

This has a fascinating connection to the current thread about McDonald's workers wanting higher wages, with the majority of the posters as I perceive it arguing that they don't deserve it, it would be bad for business, etc.

After all, they're just slaves, aren't they? Why should we worry if they have health insurance?

[iknowexactly]

(09-01-2013 02:18 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 09:05 PM)Aer Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 03:29 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

I don't totally buy the "decline and fall" hypothesis for Rome. Rome had several declines and always rose again. I am more of the mind that Rome transformed at the end of its empire.

To me, the real reason Rome ended was the invasion of the barbarian hordes. The sacks of Rome led to it ending with the King of Italy (a Germanic soldier). The Middle Ages were brought about when the Germanic tribesmen overtook large parts of the Roman Empire and it fractured into fiefdoms.

I recommend listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode "Thor's Angels" on itunes. It is free and in it he has a great quote from a historian that said that "Rome delegated away its empire."

You have a solid opinion. I was taught this fact in many of my history textbooks in college, but my opinions still differ due to the fact that:

1. The Roman Empire was built off delegation, alongside cultural amalgamation in the first place. When the Romans conquered a territory (let's say Thrace) they would send a proconsul in to maintain order, but let the people do as they pleased if they paid taxes. They would also change the gods to fit more of a Roman Pantheon thereby using religion as another controlling factor. They would then allow self rule, but invest some money into infrastructure (roads, temples, governmental offices). This was done for the vast majority of the territories, so why did it fail in the end? Answer:

2. This theory sounds a bit Gibbon-ish, but Christianity, along with the decay of moral values and lack of any "Romanization" done within the last hundred or so years prior led to social instability in the 4th century.

I think you know more about this than me, but we should examine: If Xtianity weakened Rome, what was the cause of the popularity of it? Ideas and social movements don't just happen out of nowhere, there has to be a motivation for them.

My understanding is that Christianity is a religion that appealed to the slave majority in Rome, along with the emerging consciousness of the value of the individual. This may be the first harbinger of the Enlightenment, where all people had rights-- except for the early Christians, the rebellious idea was that all people had a Soul.

Imagine, what an intoxicating idea, that a lowly slave, abused at every level if the owner was cruel, had some inherent value and an all-powerful God-- a new, improved model over any single member of the Roman pantheon-- that new improved God cared about YOU, because YOU were special and had value.

My limited understanding of the history leads me to the idea that when you have people in your empire that know full well they have no place in the continuation of the Empire, their decreasing commitment will erode it.

This has a fascinating connection to the current thread about McDonald's workers wanting higher wages, with the majority of the posters as I perceive it arguing that they don't deserve it, it would be bad for business, etc.

After all, they're just slaves, aren't they? Why should we worry if they have health insurance?

Afterthought: Maybe the problem is empire itself. Switzerland seems like a great place to live. They don't let a ton of people in who are only qualified to be laborers as far as I know.

Maybe the key is to remain small , elite and strong; and therefore valuable to to others as you are; like Switzerland. They weren't even invaded during WW2 .

[rhr]

Watch this short vid by Joseph Tainter, it's eye & mind opening:

Tainter however has some big blindspots, particularly the proliferation of psycho/sociopath during the decline phase of a society. I would recommend reading his book "Collapse of Complex Civilizations"

[iknowexactly]

(09-01-2013 03:27 AM)rhr Wrote:  

Watch this short vid by Joseph Tainter, it's eye & mind opening:



Tainter however has some big blindspots, particularly the proliferation of psycho/sociopath during the decline phase of a society. I would recommend reading his book "Collapse of Complex Civilizations"

Doomsday obsession is for young men who haven't heard it continuously for 40 -50 years like I have, while everything changes only marginally.

Counter-example to the deep-voice of doom from this guy:

California's electricity consumption has been flat all the time we've invented all this modern computer shit over the last years.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/aml6/...Energy.pdf

If all these smart people would invent something instead of howling "the end is near" we'd be better off, although they wouldn't sell as many books.

"It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness"; to me all these people are more trying to appear smart by listing all the things that are going wrong, than they are serving their purported goal of helping us avoid Bad Things.

They're always selling something, a book, a talk show, gold, whatever it is. If he was so smart why doesn't he invent a better switch for solar power or something positive.

"Everthing is going to hell" is not a valuable contribution, knowledge wise or morale wise.

[Aer]

(09-01-2013 04:21 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 03:27 AM)rhr Wrote:  

Watch this short vid by Joseph Tainter, it's eye & mind opening:



Tainter however has some big blindspots, particularly the proliferation of psycho/sociopath during the decline phase of a society. I would recommend reading his book "Collapse of Complex Civilizations"

Doomsday obsession is for young men who haven't heard it continuously for 40 -50 years like I have, while everything changes only marginally.

Counter-example to the deep-voice of doom from this guy:

California's electricity consumption has been flat all the time we've invented all this modern computer shit over the last years.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/aml6/...Energy.pdf

If all these smart people would invent something instead of howling "the end is near" we'd be better off, although they wouldn't sell as many books.

"It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness"; to me all these people are more trying to appear smart by listing all the things that are going wrong, than they are serving their purported goal of helping us avoid Bad Things.

They're always selling something, a book, a talk show, gold, whatever it is. If he was so smart why doesn't he invent a better switch for solar power or something positive.

"Everthing is going to hell" is not a valuable contribution, knowledge wise or morale wise.

That wasn't the point of my essay, however. I was only drawing comparisons in the fact that we can still curb many of these things. It will be difficult however, but I believe humans have the capacity to fix the mess they've made.

Anything is possible, but it's good to be cognizant of history, as it tends to mirror current events.

[The Beast1]

(09-01-2013 04:21 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 03:27 AM)rhr Wrote:  

Watch this short vid by Joseph Tainter, it's eye & mind opening:



Tainter however has some big blindspots, particularly the proliferation of psycho/sociopath during the decline phase of a society. I would recommend reading his book "Collapse of Complex Civilizations"

Doomsday obsession is for young men who haven't heard it continuously for 40 -50 years like I have, while everything changes only marginally.

Counter-example to the deep-voice of doom from this guy:

California's electricity consumption has been flat all the time we've invented all this modern computer shit over the last years.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/aml6/...Energy.pdf

If all these smart people would invent something instead of howling "the end is near" we'd be better off, although they wouldn't sell as many books.

"It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness"; to me all these people are more trying to appear smart by listing all the things that are going wrong, than they are serving their purported goal of helping us avoid Bad Things.

They're always selling something, a book, a talk show, gold, whatever it is. If he was so smart why doesn't he invent a better switch for solar power or something positive.

"Everthing is going to hell" is not a valuable contribution, knowledge wise or morale wise.

It's easier to dismiss these people when the economy is healthy. It's even easier when there isn't a pervasive surveillance culture.

While it sounds like you're in the last stretch of your life, the ones of us who have a few laps left are the ones who can't bury our heads in the sand any longer. The wealth we had as children is no longer existent and the future is not anywhere near as bright.

[iknowexactly]

(09-01-2013 10:47 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

While it sounds like you're in the last stretch of your life, the ones of us who have a few laps left are the ones who can't bury our heads in the sand any longer. The wealth we had as children is no longer existent and the future is not anywhere near as bright.

Our environment may be pretty different, leading us to different opinions. The rich are getting richer, as I understand it this seems to have been happening all through history. It eventually ends up with some horrible upset I don't particularly want to see because revolutions often make things worse and I'm nowhere near starving. I don't have the wealth my parents had when I was young, but that's not what's important to me. There's far more than enough to really enjoy life here.

Where I am in Northern California the malls are full-- you can barely get a parking space--the food is fresh and exquisite, with organic everything available even in the large supermarkets, there are tons of smoking chicks, very slim with long legs and just the right touch of muscle for athleticism indicating a vibrant sexuality.

There are virtually no ignorant boors wandering around bullying citizens, they're in jail where they belong, the environment--the air, the water-- is adequately protected by geniuses that have made cars that hardly pollute at all as California is a world leader at this.

Smokers are marginalized as they should be so many fewer people smoke and get tragic lung cancer diagnoses in their 40's and early 50's--many posters here whine about because of their addiction--, even the cops are polite and helpful and I've never been contacted by any of them regarding the "surveillance state" which the Republican House just voted to re-authorize funding for. I haven't been hassled by a cop, or even spoken to by one in decades unless I did something wrong like speeding, in the University nearby they are decoding the genomes and are going to be able to cure all of the horrible diseases that have tragically ruined lives for millennia-- diabetes, other genetic tragedies.

Tons of very, very smart people making things better for people all over the world and a very clean environment-- there are barely even cracks in the sidewalks before cheerful and polite civil servants patch them up-- drivers are patient and allocate a lot of room as you bicycle around--they almost refuse to take the right of way.

I guess it depends where you are and to some extent what you choose to see.

We're all going to die so to some extent the sky is always falling.

It's an important question how you choose to view it all until that happens for you.

It's all relative. What other countries have you lived in? Ukraine? Somalia? Anywhere? Interested in your experiences and opinions of how they compare.

What would make your future bright in objective terms? A 500k income? Seeing the NSA disbanded?
I mean objectively, something that can be physically precisely measured in agreed upon real terms-- not catch-phrases like "a bright future". Those things are just in our minds.