linate


The Fall of the New Rome


Is the United States the new "Rome"? If so, can America be saved, or must it fall victim to the forces of fascism, corporate plutocracy and tyranny? Is there a way out, to return to democracy and freedom? This blog explores the political, social and spiritual issues that affect the US today.


Is America repeating the mistakes of ancient Rome?

T.M.Elkins


T.M.Elkins is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in alternative journals such as Serpentine, local newspapers in the New York area, and at OpEd News.com. Originally from New Jersey, she currently resides in Germany.




In 2001, a book published by a small publishing company in the US came and went without receiving much fanfare. Nestled among the many glossy get-rich-quick, positive thinking and self- help books that one commonly finds in Christian bookstores, "When the Empire Strikes Out: Are We Repeating the Pattern of Past Civilizations? ", with its serious title and earnest, analytical tone, could not have seemed less untimely.



After all, America had just experienced a whole decade of growth, peace and self-indulgence. The economy was booming, after a few "setbacks" like the dot com bubble that burst in 2000. The Soviet Union, long considered America's archenemy, had collapsed. The cold war was over, and Clinton had promised a "peace dividend". What could go wrong?



The book's author, William R. Goetz, delved into a theory with which most Americans are unfamiliar- Sir John Glubb's theory of the rise and fall of empires- and what this theory could mean to Americans- namely, that the United States was in the throes of its imminent collapse and death. Needless to say, the book was not terribly popular. Truth never is.



At the time, I found a copy in my local Christian bookstore, and read it with great eagerness. Goetz explains how Sir John Glubb's famed book The fate of empires and Search for survival . The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival outlined seven phases in the life span of an empire, from the first, the Age of Outburst, to the last, the Age of Decline and Collapse.



Goetz's book applied this theory to the history of the United States, and came to the almost inevitable conclusion that the United States was heading for disaster.



The parallels between the last days of Rome and the last few decades of the United States are appallingly clear. Of course, we have all heard of the decadence of Rome's final years. In Caesar and Christ, Will Durant described Rome's final days as follows:


"Prostitution flourished. Homosexualism was stimulated by contact with Greece and Asia: many rich men paid a talent ($3,600) for a male favorite; Cato complained that a pretty boy cost more than a farm. Marc Antony surrendered to such sensuality that his subjects lost respect for his authority. He surrounded himself with dancers, musicians, courtesans and roisterers, and took wives and concubines whenever a fine woman struck his fancy."



The worst ruler, Nero "divorced one wife, murdered his own mother, killed a pregnant second wife, then in regret found a youth who closely resembled her, had him emasculated, married him and used him in every way like a woman." Has it gotten so bad in the US yet? Thankfully, America has not yet produced a new Nero, but the many sexual scandals (including Bill Clinton's famed cigar incident with intern Monica Lewinsky) should give us cause to consider.



Goetz quotes Henry Cabot Lodge in The History of Nations: "Perhaps the most significant mark of the corruption of the age is the frequency of divorce and the general aversion to marriage..... immorality was the rule." Another sign of a society in decline is the division of wealth: "(There were) two predominant classes in the state... the mass of beggars and the (incredibly wealthy). The "economic and social disintegration", as Lodge put it, caused the Romans to become lazy, overly fond of luxury and adverse to hard work. The indolence of its citizens, the endless internal struggles brought about by societal disunity, and the financial burden of providing free bread for thousands- these were the first cracks in Rome's invincible facade. Add to this the assimilation of thousands of barbarians into Rome, the frequent invasions from without and the many foreign wars designed to bring in much-needed funds to pay for the bloated military, public welfare and luxurious decadence of the Roman aristocracy, and you have the makings of disaster.




To be sure, the long, slow decline of Rome has long been a favorite of historians, and innumerable books have pondered the causes for her fall. While few have read all of Edward Gibbon's momentous seventeen- volume work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the gist of the book's chronicle of Rome's downfall can be summed up in what Gibbons describes as the five significant factors in her inglorious end: a rapid increase in divorce, a craze for pleasure, a bloated military coupled with ignorance of enemies within, an increase in violence and a decline in religious morals. This, yet again, reads like a perfect description of American society today.



The frivolity, hedonism, obsession with convenience (so that even walking five minutes is considered an undue burden) are one side of America's decline. Home-grown terrorists, school massacres, a sudden rash of child abductions by predatory pedophiles and the splintering of society are the darker side.



Selfishness and individualism cause children to be seen as a burden, instead of a blessing. Abortion, as in modern times, was also practiced in ancient Rome, along with infanticide. While most Americans think of Europeans as "liberal", many of the late term-abortions performed stateside would be illegal in Ireland, Poland or Germany. America has the dubious distinction of being one of the few countries on earth that allows abortions up to the last week of pregnancy, without restrictions.



American hedonism has also brought us the "Great Recession" we are now seeing: a nation that, for decades, consumed without producing, bought what it couldn't afford and demanded more wages for itself, while consuming cheap goods from overseas, is destined for defeat.



When he wrote his book in the last years of the nineties, Goetz could hardly have seen just how horribly wrong America's short- sighted economic policies could have gone- we now see Washington sending trillions of dollars to rich banking billionaires, while a whole generation of kids will spend their formative years living in tents, sleeping in motels or in their parents' cars. Meanwhile, the open borders with Mexico means that the modern day "barbarians" will continue their invasion. Millions of American citizens, out of work, are depending on extended unemployment benefits and food stamps; at the same time, America's wealthy elite would rather hire illegal immigrants than US citizens.



On the political level, we see other signs: the growth of a centralized, bloated bureaucracy, an inefficient, bloated military, the increase in expensive overseas battles, and a buildup in debt and ongoing corruption. No nation has ever successfully fought two wars on two fronts simultaneously and survived. The last two to try were Napoleon and Hitler, and both were defeated. The arrogance of our nation's leaders to think that they could succeed at such a task is astounding.



Interestingly, in chapter ten, Goetz enumerates the many threats facing America, many of which have, in the following years, come to pass. The Chinese have already committed many of the attacks that Goetz described a decade ago, including infiltration of the food supply (the melamine poisoning), shutting down power grids (which happened in 2003) and attacking the economic system through hacking (which happened last year). China's "information warfare" program is the second largest in the world- after the US. Because of America's dwindling number of native-born IT specialists (another product of the failed school and University system), we can expect the quality of China's program to soon exceed that of the US, if it hasn't already.



In When Nations Die, Jim Nelson Black writes: "As I examine the parallels between American society and other great empires in history, I am often stunned by the way our civilization mirrors the fallen giants of the past." If we want to see the future, we need only look at the past. Goetz's book now seems chillingly prophetic in its warnings. Too bad America's leaders were too busy playing golf, conducting sexual affairs or attending campaign fundraisers to pay attention to his dire warnings.

linate

What makes you think the way we designed our economic system is better than every other developed country? Please read my last post to educate yourself before responding

linate

Conservatives often argue that there are no successful socialist countries. But by the same logic, there are also no successful purely capitalist countries. Virtually every prosperous nation operates with some mix of markets and government programs rather than adhering to either extreme.




It's not as though every country outside the United States has failed. There are many successful countries, and most of them have stronger social safety nets than the U.S. The debate is rarely about capitalism versus socialism in a pure sense; it's about where to draw the line between the two.




The United States is exceptionally prosperous, but that isn't solely because we have less government involvement. Our wealth is also the result of abundant natural resources, strong institutions and laws, favorable geography, and historical advantages, including emerging from World War II in a uniquely strong economic position while many competitors were devastated.




It's also worth noting that comparisons based only on taxes can be misleading. Once you include what Americans spend privately on healthcare, along with defense spending and other costs that many countries fund through taxes, the overall burden looks much closer to that of other developed nations. If you also include private spending on things like childcare and other services that are publicly funded elsewhere, Americans may actually spend more overall. That's one reason living in the U.S. is so expensive.




The bottom line is that while the United States has the world's largest military, we also spend substantially more overall than many other successful countries. At the same time, there are no modern examples of highly successful laissez-faire capitalist economies. Finally, it's important to remember that much of America's prosperity has also been financed through enormous government borrowing. Our national debt means we have, in many respects, borrowed from the future to help create the standard of living we enjoy today

linate

Conservatives often argue that there are no successful socialist countries. But by the same logic, there are also no successful purely capitalist countries. Virtually every prosperous nation operates with some mix of markets and government programs rather than adhering to either extreme.




It's not as though every country outside the United States has failed. There are many successful countries, and most of them have stronger social safety nets than the U.S. The debate is rarely about capitalism versus socialism in a pure sense; it's about where to draw the line between the two.




The United States is exceptionally prosperous, but that isn't solely because we have less government involvement. Our wealth is also the result of abundant natural resources, strong institutions and laws, favorable geography, and historical advantages, including emerging from World War II in a uniquely strong economic position while many competitors were devastated.




It's also worth noting that comparisons based only on taxes can be misleading. Once you include what Americans spend privately on healthcare, along with defense spending and other costs that many countries fund through taxes, the overall burden looks much closer to that of other developed nations. If you also include private spending on things like childcare and other services that are publicly funded elsewhere, Americans may actually spend more overall. That's one reason living in the U.S. is so expensive.




The bottom line is that while the United States has the world's largest military, we also spend substantially more overall than many other successful countries. At the same time, there are no modern examples of highly successful laissez-faire capitalist economies. Finally, it's important to remember that much of America's prosperity has also been financed through enormous government borrowing. Our national debt means we have, in many respects, borrowed from the future to help create the standard of living we enjoy today

linate


The title of this thread is there aren't successful laissez faire countries


Conservatives often argue that there are no successful socialist countries. But by the same logic, there are also no successful purely capitalist countries. Virtually every prosperous nation operates with some mix of markets and government programs rather than adhering to either extreme.


It's not as though every country outside the United States has failed. There are many successful countries, and most of them have stronger social safety nets than the U.S. The debate is rarely about capitalism versus socialism in a pure sense; it's about where to draw the line between the two.


The United States is exceptionally prosperous, but that isn't solely because we have less government involvement. Our wealth is also the result of abundant natural resources, strong institutions and laws, favorable geography, and historical advantages, including emerging from World War II in a uniquely strong economic position while many competitors were devastated.


It's also worth noting that comparisons based only on taxes can be misleading. Once you include what Americans spend privately on healthcare, along with defense spending and other costs that many countries fund through taxes, the overall burden looks much closer to that of other developed nations. If you also include private spending on things like childcare and other services that are publicly funded elsewhere, Americans may actually spend more overall. That's one reason living in the U.S. is so expensive.


The bottom line is that while the United States has the world's largest military, we also spend substantially more overall than many other successful countries. At the same time, there are no modern examples of highly successful laissez-faire capitalist economies. Finally, it's important to remember that much of America's prosperity has also been financed through enormous government borrowing. Our national debt means we have, in many respects, borrowed from the future to help create the standard of living we enjoy today.


linate

Conservatives always say there's no successful socialist states. Actually, there's no successful purely capitalist states. Its not like every other country than the usa is unsuccessful... there's lots of them that are. Every major country has varying degrees of social safety nit's, not so much either or socialist or not socialist. In fact, most other countries have more socialism than we do but there's plenty who are successful. The usa is an outlier in how prosperous we are but that just as much to do with our resources and our laws and fortune during wwii. In fact, looking at tax burden the usa spends about the same as other countries if you count our defense and private Healthcare spending that every other country spends through taxes. And moreso if you count things like childcare and other social welfare that our private sector spends that elsewhere is taxes, we spend way more than others overall. Thats why its so expensive here in the usa. The bottomline is that we might have a biggest military but we still spend way more and there's other countries who are successful and there's no capitalist laissez faire who are successful. We also have a huge debt meaning we borrowed hugely from the future to create much of what we have

linate

Chatgpt is good at style and is a good jack of all trades


Claude is good at pure logic


Gemini is good at logic to a lesser degree and is good at everything else than Ai chat other ai features especially given its connected to Google

linate

So i say its raining outside and I tell you there's someone with a PhD who teaches logic and critical thinking (like the guy who wrote the book i showed you) who also says its raining outside, your response is to say its not your responsibility to look outside? and you will only accept peer reviewed scientific evidence that its raining outside and I have the burden to show this evidence?


I mean you are capable enough to know why id call your position as humans being elaborate flesh robots who Hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories. Free will and the plain evidence of ndes and nde science. So its fair of me to expect a reply right? Maybe im just not capable, but i dont know else to characterize it, other than to say you'd think its too simplistic and hurts the feelings of skeptics, even though what im saying is essentially true

linate

In your case, thats fair. I dont see you out here making ridiculous claims about believers then tearing into it. I think a lot of your ideas are weak, but that dont mean you in particular are strawmanning opposition, and its not like people can't have different world views

linate

So you claim.


If im wrong show me im wrong. I probably wouldn't accept a couple anecdotes but apparently you can't even provide that. I know I can't recall ever seeing Mohamed or Buddha ndes. And the couple Indian ones were open to interpretation or didn't look credible. Just take my advice and look into it with your own eyes, tell me what you conclude, and then tell me why you insist on adhering to your worldview despite the evidence and what your own eyes can see


On a side note, do you seriously take the position that humans are nothing other than elaborate flesh robots who sometimes hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die?
I would question and/or disagree with that characterization


Why? This is a debate site, not a place to make arm chair conclusory statements

linate

Sure there are people with childish conceptions of god and jesus so what do atheists do? They hold god up to those childish conceptions. instead of the mature approach of asking if god is or could be real what would he be like? Basically they strawman god instead of steelmaning god

linate

That's a good point. Sure there are people with childish conceptions of god so what do atheists do? They hold god up to those childish conceptions. instead of the mature approach of asking if god is or could be real what would he be like? Basically they strawman god instead of steelmaning god

linate

What if all these studies are correct? You would have a point that not knowing much about Jesus isn't going to suddenly make someone see him in an nde. But they do see a being of light. And those that do know him or even skeptics who are just more familiar do see him and Christian content at a significant rate such that it's a core component of ndes. Doesn't happen quantitatively or qualitatively the same with other religions. Again this is based on that formal study but also just looking into these things with your own eyes in an impartial way.


On a side note, do you seriously take the position that humans are nothing other than elaborate flesh robots who sometimes hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die? Isnt that what atheism or skepticism or materialism is reduced to these days? Plain evidence staring us in the face, but y'all wanna ignore it, like an ostrich with his head in the sand

linate

I thought id tickle the atheists with this one. Recently ive gone from saying philosophical evidence for god counts as evidence to saying it doesnt count. My reasoning is that only loosely should philosophy alone count as evidence... in concrete terms scientifically and legally and even philosophically evidence needs to be empirical to count as evidence. But that goes the other way too... philosophy alone doesnt count as evidence that god doesn't exist. To be sure, there are scientific principles that could go either way on the god question, but interpreting the concepts is philosophical in nature mostly.


Plus science says we can't prove a negative, we say we can't disprove god. Its kinda weak to say we have evidence for something that can't be disproven

linate

Actually some insightful wisdom hunter be spitting (if its really from him)


I'm not running for office. But if I were, these are some of the lessons I'd take away from what happened in NY yesterday. 1. Authenticity is measurable. Voters can smell a focus group from a mile away. 2. Endorsements from the current Democratic leadership now read like warnings. The establishment wing of the party is no longer a sword. It's a question mark. 3. Conviction beats caution. The candidates who said hard things about rent, about who pays for what, about Gaza, they won. The triangulators lost. 4. Cost of living is everything. Everything else is wallpaper. 5. The middle is not a strategy. It's an empty room. Voters reached past the establishment to grab someone who actually believes something. 6. Don't fear the base. Court it. The Democrats who ran from their own voters lost. The ones who ran toward them won. 7. If you want to lead a party you have to be willing to fight inside it. Mamdani didn't ask permission. He took the field. The lesson under the lessons: the country is tired of being managed. People want to be led.
linate

He's not completely terrible and I do abide by some conservative principles


and to be fair trump and the Republicans are acting uncharacteristically here. Regulating the housing market is a dem tactic. But sometimes some policies are too good of ideas that'd make any politician look bad to vote against

linate

As i said, All one has to do is search for Christian v non-Christian ndes and you'll see how hard it is to find non Christian ones and then reading them how obscure they are. Quantitatively and qualitatively different. 

linate


linate wrote:
There was a study done. Christian elements and jesus are a core phenomenon of ndes, they happen at a much greater frequency than nonchristian ndes, not just hsppening more but at a higher rate. Ndes of other faith are so rare and unreliable qualitatively and open to interpretation that we can't draw too many conclusions about them. All one has to do is search for Christian v non-Christian ndes and you'll see how hard it is to find non Christian ones and then reading them how obscure they are. Quantitatively and qualitatively different. And as I said most atheists come back believing in God. If ndes are more objective than conventional wisdom says, then perhaps we can draw fairly conclusions about their content.


As a skeptic how do you view this science? Do you deny science simply because it contradicts your worldview?

linate

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/poll-us-boomers-support-tax-100500119.html


It's interesting that boomers overwhelmingly would want to increase taxes on the younger generation to fund their social security, but it might be even more interesting that the article chose to frame it as boomers v the young to catch headlines and maybe sour the public on saving social security instead framing it as what the best options might be. like eliminating the cap on taxable income. The article should have talked about how boomers rank the various options to fix the program

linate

I ran your response through ai and in a nutshell this is what it said "If anything, the more psychologically grounded version is closer to cognitive dissonance + motivated reasoning + identity alignment, not a shared understanding that “it’s all a show.”


Thoughts?