Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire Pt. 2

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 05:16:01

Climate change aside, looking at the subset of empire dynamics only, the situation is quite interesting in its own right. Many good points have been made above. I too feel we are in a post peak empire mode. We are at the same point GB was between world wars, there are areas where we had influence, but that is slipping through our fingers. We are spending a lot of effort to retain that influence, but it is still slipping.

After WWII the accendence of Amercian economic power was evident to all. It was simply clear that the seat of power had moved. This situation was not so clear 20 years earlier when the British were still struggling to hold on. 1937 and 2017 are both murky times.

Churchill could clearly see that bringing American economic power to bear in the war was the solution. Britian alone could not bear the strain against the Axis. The Axis could not bear the strain against America. Churchill clung to his visions of Empire, he knew that as the Empire slipped from the British orb so would Britians wealth and influence. So he hung onto India, and it's markets, for dear life. The war debts and reconstruction costs drained Britian.

The USA was once a the dominant producer nation and the world was our India. As our economy grew we needed bigger and bigger markets and birthed Consumerisim to support our factories. As the economy matured, we switched to a service/financial economy, we relinquished our producer role. In recent years, we have been fighting a costly war of stabilization. The 2008 economic shock caused us to go deeply into debt and invent money and financial tricks to keep the game going.

We're the past cycle to repeat some other nation, such as China or India, would have ursurpped our role by becoming the producers. China moved in this direction but already they are maturing, off shoring their own manufacturing, playing in financials, leasing land outside China to feed Chineese.

So I think this time the cycle will be broken. There is no next empire. What there will be remains a question, whose answer climate change will influence deeply.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18451
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 09:49:16

Newfie wrote:Tanada,

I like your approach, but I'm confused. If the tipping point is around 520 and our current CO2e range is as high as 530 doesn't that make the shift possible shortly? On the outside of the range but still there?


Correct, that is why I keep telling people the time for prevention is past and the time to adapt is upon us. Even if the USA were to suddenly decide to go carbon free electricity building windmills and nuclear plants and solar farms everywhere and couple that with synthetic fuel the other 7,200,000,000 people on the planet will still burn enough fossil fuel to push us firmly onto the next step. The cultural inertia of burning fossil fuels is too strong for any other result to take place.

Yes the error bars are very large because the number of variables is very large and each influences
the exact point at which we step up to the 16C world average.

IT! IS! TO! LATE! TO! STOP!

The media does us all a major disservice by portraying climate change as a smooth integral function where we slide up out of major glaciations and smoothly back down. That is a completely false view of reality. When the world is in a major glaciation like it was 25,000 ybp the temperature of the globe cycled up and down a bit and the glaciers advanced and retreated every few thousand years around the margins. Then about 20,000 ybp the change from major glaciation to the current interglacial took one step that was effectively overnight. The only delay was the fact that there was so much ice extending from the poles it took a long time to retreat. People look at this image and they see it took 6,000 years for the massive ice sheets to melt so they think that means the world temperature was slowly rising for that 6,000 years. That is deceptive and incorrect, in reality the world temperature jumped from around 10C to around 13C in a very short period of time but the ice was so massive it took a long time to all melt from that increase in temperature.
Image

World average temperatures meant that in Florida (for example) the climate 15,000 years ago was very close to what it is today, but then over time as the massive glaciers melted half of Florida became drown land tens to hundreds of feet below sea level. In Virginia the climate 20,000 years ago was a lot like Michigan or Wisconsin today, then overnight the climate changed and it became much more like it is today with massive glaciers located just a few hundred miles further north in NYC. Because major glaciations cover a more or less circular area extending from each pole the outermost edge covers a very long perimeter. This means if the ice retreats a mile from its maximum extent it releases a lot more water in the beginning of the melt cycle than it does at the end when the perimeter is much much smaller.

This means to create that mostly smooth integral of sea level rise in the graph the rate of melting had to steadily speed up as the ice extent became smaller and smaller closer to the poles. The cause is believed to be the albedo effect, as the edge moved closer to the poles the area where sunlight was reflected away in summer shrank. However when you are talking about a sheet up to two miles thick for a long time the melting that happens is in the form of thinning, not losing extent. This is the same argument people are having about Arctic Sea Ice today, one person looks at the picture in spring and says the extent or area is almost as large as it was 20 years ago, while another person looks at the sea ice volume and point out while it looks visually similar the actual amount of ice is a tiny fraction of what it was. So the extent shrank very slowly while at the same time every summer the volume shrank a lot more. Only the ice around the edge where the layer was thinnest actually retreated closer to the poles every summer, further inland the glacier deflated a few meters ever summer and then got a fresh dusting of new snow each winter. Because of the surface melting being the predominant way the glaciers melted very large melt water lakes were formed, and as each of these was breached and drained into the world ocean the sea level pulsed higher. Each MWP on the graph means Melt Water Pulse showing when one of these took place.

As the ice edge retreated the newly exposed territory did not revert to tundra like it does when the world average temperature is around the bottom, instead it reverted to prairie or forest landscape within a couple of decades of becoming ice free. It you look at what is taking place in southern Greenland today you can see the same effect.

Check out this graph, over the entire geological history of our planet the world average temperature in Fahrenheit has ranged between 55 and 75 degrees with a few minor excursions here or there. The constant hyping of the idea that if Canada starts averaging 75 F again as it has many times in the past we will go extinct is just plain fear mongering.
Image

Far better to prepare ourselves for that reality, which could happen any time, than to fantasize we can prevent it from taking place. We are past the point of no return. Time to wake up to that reality.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Ibon » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 10:14:43

Newfie wrote:
So I think this time the cycle will be broken. There is no next empire. What there will be remains a question, whose answer climate change will influence deeply.


The cycle will be broken. But then again we assume an empire to rise under the context of the past couple of thousand years when technological progress and greater exploitation of resources was always coupled with each emerging empire.

What happens this time is that something may reconfigure but it will not be coupled with exponential resource exploitation and technology gains as in past empires. So this raises the interesting question. Assuming we will preserve scientific knowledge this will be applied to any cyclical new empire but in an ecological environment and resource base that will be diminished. Doesn't this force any new empire to adapt another set of cultural regulations?

Every past empire for the past couple of thousand years emerged in this cyclical pattern with greater technological inventions at their disposal and greater energy exploitation and a biosphere of still unexploited resources.

How does a new empire adapt with science preserved but a diminished ecological resource base?

Doesn't self regulation of consumption and population become a higher priority under these circumstances? This assumes of course that some new empire emerges.

Otherwise there will be a lot of small tribal communities thriving in the monumental shadows of our ruins much like the Mayans who were living in grass mud huts in the shadows of their ruined pyramids when the Spanish first came to the New World 500 years ago.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Ibon » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 10:24:23

Tanada wrote: When the world is in a major glaciation like it was 25,000 ybp the temperature of the globe cycled up and down a bit and the glaciers advanced and retreated every few thousand years around the margins. Then about 20,000 ybp the change from major glaciation to the current interglacial took one step that was effectively overnight. The only delay was the fact that there was so much ice extending from the poles it took a long time to retreat. People look at this image and they see it took 6,000 years for the massive ice sheets to melt so they think that means the world temperature was slowly rising for that 6,000 years. That is deceptive and incorrect, in reality the world temperature jumped from around 10C to around 13C in a very short period of time but the ice was so massive it took a long time to all melt from that increase in temperature.


Enjoyed that post Tanada. That ice acted like a big sink of energy stored in a flywheel or a battery which is what permitted that slow rising for 6000 years. As you point out there is no stored sink remaining today to moderate change. This is why we can fully expect an inflection point with accelerated changes coming very very soon in geologic terms, even in human life time terms. There is no base line normal that we will return to in the foreseeable future

Which institution in the private or public sector has anything to gain from explaining this to the mass of humanity.

Crunch time on a global level
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby onlooker » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 12:28:16

Okay, here I put on my optimistic hat . I do not see any Empire arising again as we interpret the meaning of the word. What I think can happen is what Ibon says must happen. The remaining humans coalesce under certain principles which they rightfully deem crucial to sustain themselves. Among these principles is a sense of unity, of avoiding violent conflict, of living within what the natural world provides and having a deep veneration for Nature and for life itself. Remember, they will have gone through harrowing ordeals or said ordeals will have happened recently so that they will be leaving a profound imprint on the humans trying to reconfigure communities and society. Harmony will be a prized concept as it will define how these humans wish to live. What advanced information and technology survives will be warily viewed and employed as humanity will be naturally wary of it given how it facilitated the destruction of the commons and very nearly humanity itself.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Ibon » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 15:00:46

pstarr wrote:All animal populations go through periods of die off. We are no exceptional. The question is how far can we rebound? Do we end up like the remnant reindeer population on Isle Royale, or the pitiful 24 humans left on Easter Island?


This is true as is the carrying capacity following the die-off being reduced due to the impacts on the ecosystems caused by overshoot. Regeneration will be centuries or millenniums.

Consider what Onlooker is saying here which is what I have been suggesting for many years. If we preserve science and knowledge we will carry this through the die-off and into the rebound. Furthermore we will have references of our overshoot as ruins for centuries to come. In addition we will also have the historical data of how abundant things were before we went into overshoot. All of these facts together form the basis for the foundation of a cultural code of self regulating principals that could be incorporated in a future society. We will have the reminders of this as a constant for many generations.

Past cycles of emerging new empires built on the technological gains of their predecessors which laid down the foundation for new technological advances.

This time around we will once again build on the legacy of what came beforehand. In addition to the science and technology it will also include the detrimental impacts of overshoot.

And so we might learn.... .

If modern human civilizations are only 10,000 years old this is the blink of an eye for a species. Human civilization only 10,000 years old has not had the test of time to prove its resilience. If it does evolve as a stable form of "ecology" for our species it actually requires these die-offs to increase resilience.

How else would we ever build in a set of cultural and ethical self regulating principals if not through the harrowing consequences of not having done so. This has always been the central driving force moving us toward a less rogue existence as a species and to a place of more long term resilience.

There is room for optimism as Onlooker suggests.

Why else would one Worship the Overshoot Predator if not to recognize what he will teach us?
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 18:07:56

The US empire is held together by the $, the Navy and TV selling the dream.
China is the obvious replacement
The $ will be challenged more and more but there will need to be a universal acceptance of the Yuan for that to become complete.
The Navy will also be challenged by technology,islands and China's inland silk routes of road and fast rail to maintain trade.
The American dream sold through Hollywood is still a powerful drug China cant compete with yet,at the moment you would say its buying the dream not selling it.
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 01:43:28

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 18:35:06

Nice post Tanada, very clear thinking.

I don't want to confuse this concept of EMPIRE with EXTINCTION. I know it's tempting to draw back and look at the big picture, but there is also something to looking at individual components as well.

Shaved, I get that China would seem the natural next empire. And maybe it already is, we just don't recognize it. Debatable.

I'm thinking that either the US empire, already in decline, never fully transfers to China. Or that China never fully realizes empire in the context we understand now.

Thinking as I type here, Dutch to Britan was not hard, both European naval states. Britan to USA was not hard, the same Protestant work ethic in both places, circumstances forced the transfer. Brits had over extended and exhausted itself, America was remorse rich and relatively unscarred by the world wars.

But China? I'm not feeling it. I get that they are the great producers, they have energy. But they also have some BIG problems. They are a mature country, with limited per capita resources of food and water. They can build and sell, but they also need to buy heavily to feed their people. They sell items that are useful (and vast amounts of junk) but they buy calories and water. Their is no vacant undeveloped space (India or interior lands) to develop. They NEED existing healthy trade partners to survive.

Is China important? A giant? Absolutely! A global empire? Not so sure.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18451
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 19:57:06

Newfie wrote:Nice post Tanada, very clear thinking.

I don't want to confuse this concept of EMPIRE with EXTINCTION. I know it's tempting to draw back and look at the big picture, but there is also something to looking at individual components as well.

Shaved, I get that China would seem the natural next empire. And maybe it already is, we just don't recognize it. Debatable.

I'm thinking that either the US empire, already in decline, never fully transfers to China. Or that China never fully realizes empire in the context we understand now.

Thinking as I type here, Dutch to Britan was not hard, both European naval states. Britan to USA was not hard, the same Protestant work ethic in both places, circumstances forced the transfer. Brits had over extended and exhausted itself, America was remorse rich and relatively unscarred by the world wars.

But China? I'm not feeling it. I get that they are the great producers, they have energy. But they also have some BIG problems. They are a mature country, with limited per capita resources of food and water. They can build and sell, but they also need to buy heavily to feed their people. They sell items that are useful (and vast amounts of junk) but they buy calories and water. Their is no vacant undeveloped space (India or interior lands) to develop. They NEED existing healthy trade partners to survive.

Is China important? A giant? Absolutely! A global empire? Not so sure.


World wide empires are kind of a new thing, really dating from the 1700's. Sure Spain claimed a world Empire in 1500's but it was very loose, small numbers of missionaries and priests suppressing nassive native populations and frequently using some of them to enslave the rest. In the 1600's the Dutch built a trading system with Indonesia but that was hardly an Empire, they held part of Java and had a few scattered outposts. Finaly in the mid 1700's the British and French had a series of wars with each other and the Dutch and Portugese to settle who had trading rights in each territory. It asn't until the mid 1800's that the British took over the trading rights of the British East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company and other chartered companies that had controlled India and North America. The 13 colonies were a tiny smudge on the edge of the map whike the Hudson's BayCompany had everything east of the Rocky Mountains north of Lake Superior.

If you talk about ancint empires like Rome or Persia or China they were about the size of modern Mexico or maybe Brazil. Who says if China takes over financially their current size is too small to be the most important country? That is really what "World Empire" used to mean.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Ibon » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 20:48:19

Didn't the Roman Empire drag on for a couple hundred years before the onset of the dark ages? Maybe our global civilization will drag on for a couple hundred years and the break up will be gradual as well. I kind of agree that there is no emerging empire on the short term horizon that will replace the US.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 21:27:54

Ibon wrote:Didn't the Roman Empire drag on for a couple hundred years before the onset of the dark ages? Maybe our global civilization will drag on for a couple hundred years and the break up will be gradual as well. I kind of agree that there is no emerging empire on the short term horizon that will replace the US.


The Western Roman Empire started falling apart around 410 AD and kept falling for about 250 years but the Eastern Roman Empire changed its name to Byzantine Empire and survived into the 1400's when a combination of western Crusaders and Islamic armies dealt it repeated blows and it was conquered by the combination. After that the Islamist's gradually pushed the crusaders back to western Europe and conquered the Balkan region of the Byzantine Empire, which is why the Muslim population there was the highest in Europe until France invited Algerians to migrate into their country in the post World War II era.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 24 Aug 2017, 05:44:16

The period of decline is more to the point. If there is no obvious successor then the USA can hang on for a while longer providing some stability.

Maybe, if we don't tear ourselves apart internally.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18451
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Thu 24 Aug 2017, 19:42:38

Stability is subjective
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 01:43:28

Re: Peak Empire

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 24 Aug 2017, 20:18:32

Yeah, and it's all just speculation anyway.

Most likely I'm gonna be surprised at what actually does happen.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18451
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

The American Empire in the Middle East

Unread postby vox_mundi » Sat 20 Jan 2018, 13:22:46

A Rare Glimpse into the Inner Workings of the American Empire in the Middle East

Image

In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, four former U.S. diplomats provided remarkably candid commentary on recent U.S. involvement in the Middle East, revealing a number of the most closely guarded secrets of U.S. diplomacy.

Some of the more astounding revelations concern the basic reason why U.S. officials remain so focused on the Middle East. Although U.S. officials typically emphasize the problems of terrorism and security, a number of the former diplomats indicated that the major concerns have always been the region’s oil, location, and function in the global economy.

Former diplomat Eric Edelman made the clearest statement on the matter, explaining in his prepared statement that geostrategic calculations have been central factors in U.S. policy since the end of World War II. “U.S. policymakers have considered access to the region’s energy resources vital for U.S. allies in Europe, and ultimately for the United States itself,” he wrote. “Moreover, the region’s strategic location—linking Europe and Asia—made it particularly important from a geopolitical point of view.”
... “The geostrategic and economic factors that made the Middle East so important to our national security in the past are just as potent today,” ... Even with recent increases in U.S. energy production as a result of the fracking revolution, “real or even potential disruptions to the flow of oil anywhere would have serious negative effects on our economy.”

- Ambassador Eric S. Edelman

With his remarks, Edelman made it clear that U.S. officials continue to value the Middle East for its oil. The region “contains half of global proven oil reserves, accounts for one-third of oil production and exports, and is home to three of the world’s four biggest oil transit chokepoints,” he explained.

When Edelman raised these points during the hearing, nobody disagreed with him. Neither his colleagues nor the committee members challenged his observations about why the region was so important. His remarks were considered so uncontroversial that they never came up for debate.

Image

... In these ways, the former diplomats provided some remarkable insights into the most basic reasons behind U.S. actions in the Middle East. They revealed that basic U.S. policy was to maintain a U.S.-led system of regional order so that the U.S. government could influence how all parts of the world gained access to the region’s oil.

Throughout the hearing, the four former diplomats also made a number of unusually blunt criticisms of U.S. strategy. They felt that their superiors in Washington and their many partners throughout the region kept taking steps that were creating more problems in the area.

Ambassador James F. Jeffrey was especially critical of the Obama administration, which he blamed for failures in the second Gulf War against Iraq. Jeffrey, who was the Obama administration’s ambassador to Iraq during the period when U.S. forces withdrew from the country in 2011, said that the administration should have accepted a secret plan to keep U.S. forces in the country.

Jeffrey explained that administration officials had arranged a secret plan with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki “to cheat, with Maliki’s acknowledgement,” on the final agreement to withdraw U.S. forces from the country.
... “We had Black SOF, White SOF,” he said, referring to classified & decoy Special Operations Forces Operations. “We had drones, we had all kinds of things” ... “It was a very big package, including a $14 billion FMS program,” ... referring Foreign Military Sales program. “We had bases all over the country that were disguised bases that the U.S. military was running.”

- Ambassador James F. Jeffrey

Jeffrey was reluctant to provide more details, but he insisted that the secret plan could have worked if his superiors in the Obama administration had tried it. He did not express any concern about the fact that an estimated 100,000 people had already died in the war.

... Jeffrey was especially critical of Turkey, a NATO ally. He said that “the things they do are toxic.”

... Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker reminded the committee members that the United States still relied on Turkey to maintain access to the region. He said that it would be necessary to continue working with the country’s repressive leadership, despite its troubling behavior.
“They are a NATO partner in a region where we don’t have a choice between democracy and autocracy,” ... “That’s not on the table.”

- Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker

The former diplomats signaled their support for the Iraqi government’s military operations against the Kurds, despite the fact that the Iraqi Kurds were playing a significant role in the war against IS.

Jeffrey argued that Iraq must hold together because of its potential to produce so much oil. He said that Iraq could eventually enter “into the Saudi Arabia category,” meaning that it could become a major player in the global oil market. “That’s a very important trump card, so to speak, in the Middle East, and we don’t want to just break it up,” he said.

Jeffrey was especially critical of the Iraqi Kurds for pursuing independence, saying that “they have gone in three months from one of the best good-news stories in the region to another basket case.”
If the Kurds keep crossing “red lines,” ... “we’re probably not going to be around to back them up when the going gets rough.”

- Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker

It’s the same as, sadly, with the Christian communities,” Crocker added, referring to Iraqi Christians who were facing their own challenges.

Image

In these ways, the former diplomats made it clear that they were willing to ignore the plight of their partners and other marginalized groups if they could not find any strategic reasons to support them. The challenges facing the Kurds and Christians, they indicated, were minor factors compared to the strategic factors at play. They all believed that they had to accept these trade-offs if they were going to achieve their plans for the region.

... Although the U.S. has constructed a kind of informal American empire, they believe that U.S. actions and polices are creating blowback that is bringing more conflict and violence to the region.

Anything we do to contain Iran, to push back, will bring with it great risks to us and to people in the region,” Jeffrey said. These were the lessons of history, he explained, citing “the chaos we deliberately created” to confront past challengers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.

Image

“When Highly Committed Parties Believe Strongly [In] Things That They Cannot Achieve Democratically, They Don’t Give Up Their Beliefs — They Give Up On Democracy”

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/18/16880524/ ... rumpocracy

Image


Lincoln's Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois - January 27, 1838

As a subject for the remarks of the evening, the perpetuation of our political institutions, is selected.

... All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice.

... It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. ... [This gratification] scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen.

Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy.

Distinction will be [such a persons] paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm; yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.


Washington's Farewell Address 1796

... I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; and that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.

... The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

... Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.


The Calculated Destruction of America’s Government
Last edited by vox_mundi on Sat 20 Jan 2018, 15:01:59, edited 4 times in total.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: The American Empire in the Middle East

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 20 Jan 2018, 14:15:42

There's oil in the Middle East? Who'd a thunk it!
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: The American Empire in the Middle East

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 20 Jan 2018, 15:14:39

vox_mundi wrote:[A Rare Glimpse into the Inner Workings of the American Empire in the Middle East

...

With his remarks, Edelman made it clear that U.S. officials continue to value the Middle East for its oil.
The region “contains half of global proven oil reserves, accounts for one-third of oil production and exports, and is home to three of the world’s four biggest oil transit chokepoints,” he explained.

When Edelman raised these points during the hearing, nobody disagreed with him. Neither his colleagues nor the committee members challenged his observations about why the region was so important. His remarks were considered so uncontroversial that they never came up for debate.

It's not like mentioning the elephant in the room changes anything for those with a functioning brain.

If in doubt, compare the level of attention and the consistency of that attention re the Middle East, to say poor African nations, or poor nations in general -- when they lack resources we badly want in the short to intermediate term.

(Lots >> almost zero).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: The American Empire in the Middle East

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Sat 20 Jan 2018, 19:36:14

Middle east involvement is massively linked to Christian Zionists too.
The god of Capitalism is only one of the gods
Securing Israel prior to the eventual take over of China as the new World Power.

There arent enough Chinese Zionists to fight their proxy wars
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 01:43:28

Re: The American Empire in the Middle East

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Tue 23 Jan 2018, 07:09:46

But Chinese interests in the long run differ little from American interests now, the oil is key regardless who. The US is likely to wind up a lot like Russia, able to defend a few key allies, while the greater power defers on those points while continuing it's big game. Israel is certainly going to remain a key American protectorate.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: The American Empire in the Middle East

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Tue 23 Jan 2018, 08:11:42

SeaGypsy wrote: Israel is certainly going to remain a key American protectorate.

Without the Jews in Israel there can be no Armageddon

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.pr ... -1.5628081
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 01:43:28

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests