Time for Imperial America to rise!

reply to post by cassandranova


I think the key event will be an economic and financial collapse, possibly this decade.

It was the key event in the collapse of the Roman Republic, leading to a military coup, a counter coup which suspended elections, and then a civil war resulting in absolute dictatorship sanctioned by the Senate.

I think we will follow that sequence somewhat. Insolvency is the key.

In your opinion, do you forsee a civil war as an inevitable prerequistie or would general unrest of the sort a depression might cause be sufficient?

Originally posted by cassandranova
In your opinion, do you forsee a civil war as an inevitable prerequistie or would general unrest of the sort a depression might cause be sufficient?

I think there would be some kind of conflict. The civil war in Rome when Sulla defeated the forces of Cinna was a small conflict taking place within 1 year, mainly a few battles involving private and professional forces. 50,000 people still died though.

In our example, imagine a few battles between two factions of the military outside Washington DC, probably in Maryland and Virginia, with the final battle within the District of Columbia.

We have that far left and far right paradigm that Rome had that seems to make a conflict inevitable and the chance of coups and counter coups likely. Neither side has an overwhelming majority, making a massive sweep into power like the Jacobins, Bolsheviks, and Nazis impossible. Instead, with both sides almost equal, they will fight for domination as the financial and economic system falls apart.

reply to post by spw184


I would like to thank you for the thread. I do want to point out a few things that I think are cornerstones in this issue and I would invite all of the readers to take a look at this. This is for all men and women, but I post this for The American People to stay on topic.

The Declaration Of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self - evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIberty and the pursuit of Happieness."

I am going to quote Newt Gingrich and I agree with him for what are obvious reasons to follow:

"That order of justice( Mentioned Above ) requires all men and women to honor each other's natural rights, because these rights are an unalienable endowment from The Almighty."

So, what am I saying ? Where is this going? I will tell you. America was founded on the above principal and many others. The cornerstone that The Declaration Of Independence and Our Freedom as Americans hinges upon is the simple fact that God and the belief in Him was and is the Thread that secures liberty and freedom for America and the people of America.The problem America faces is not one that requires a "Leader to Deliver Us" The problem is America has forgotten "The Leader" that delivered us in the first place and gave us freedom.. That is "God and God alone".. Not religion.. but "God"

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Accepting your idea that there are different power bases without a predominant faction, given the way people have moved in recent years along ideological lines and how there are real cultural differences between areas of the nation, especially amongst middle and lower class people much more than elites, would it be possible to say an equally plausible scenario would be looking at the fall of Alexander's Empire? After that, power coalesced into a couple powerful but separate blocs.

It's not that hard for me to imagine at least several different entities forming in the US, especially if state governments just stepped up the tiniest bit into the void while there was warring between different Federal and military actions. I imagine half the west and Texas would love to split.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


You have a very warped opinion of what the United States of America really is.

reply to post by CherubBaby


One thing to consider is what "Creator" was Jefferson thinking of when he wrote the Declaration.

Jefferson did not believe in the Trinity or the deity of Jesus.

The term "Nature's God" found in the first sentence is from the Roman Senator Cicero, whose writings had a great influence on Jefferson.

reply to post by cassandranova


There are a number of issues with the US balkanizing like Yugoslavia or the USSR.

One of the first issues is the US is far more homogenous than entities that normally balkanize. The second is ideological differences in the nation arn't so much a geographic issue as one along lines of income and location in urban or rural areas. That could change though in a few decades, at least in the Southwest, where the Hispanic population could revolt and try to seek independence. I think our economy and financial system will go down before that happens though. There are a number of massive urban centers that could try seek independence in the event of some kind collapse, but most are not viable enough to be independent. At the same time almost none of them would be prepared to mount any sort of real defense against a strong central authority based out of the BosWash corridor, the heart of our Republic.

This doesn't mean there won't be revolts by some communities. I fully expect some, even those not viable, to try.
After Sulla took power in Rome, Hispania revolted for years against his rule until the Roman legions finally crushed them. Considering that, we could see a number of Chechnya style conflicts in different parts of the country.

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

You have a very warped opinion of what the United States of America really is.

Can you elaborate so I can provide an adequate response?

I would like to know what exactly is warped.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Natures God? From The first sentence? I dont know what your talking about. I also am not going to try to decide what or who or where Jefferson was thinking. I do know what the text of the Declaration says tho. Thats all I have to go off of and thats enough.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

Natures God? From The first sentence? I dont know what your talking about. I also am not going to try to decide what or who or where Jefferson was thinking. I do know what the text of the Declaration says tho. Thats all I have to go off of and thats enough.

The first sentence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Most of the ideas from the Declaration can be found in the works of Cicero.

I merely brought it up in case, as some do, that the Republic was "Christian". Some of the founders were, but the brains behind this experiment were not, being either Deists or like Jefferson, somewhere between Epicurean and Deist.

No offense intended.

reply to post by spw184


America has had an imperialistic foreign policy since before Teddy Roosevelt, though he exemplified it. We've been nation building for a long, long time.

/TOA

On this day, 12 October 1859, His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, ordered the Congress of the United States to dissolve.

“Fraud and corruption prevent a fair and proper expression of the public voice; that open violation of the laws are constantly occurring, caused by mobs, parties, factions and undue influence of political sects; that the citizen has not that protection of person and property which he is entitled.”

Originally posted by JoshNorton
On this day, 12 October 1859, His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, ordered the Congress of the United States to dissolve.

“Fraud and corruption prevent a fair and proper expression of the public voice; that open violation of the laws are constantly occurring, caused by mobs, parties, factions and undue influence of political sects; that the citizen has not that protection of person and property which he is entitled.”

o.o What?

reply to post by MikeboydUS


MikeBoyd, I probably agree with your analysis though I will say I think you might be underestimating the degree of regionalism that still exists. I've spent enough time traveling in the South to think they wouldn't be too upset to see the Atlantic corridor have less control. While you're right that ideology tends to follow urban/suburban lines, I do think there are enough differences between red and blue states that it might matter.

And, as you seem to suggest, I wouldn't be surprised under the right circumstances to see certain states consider bolting, such as a Texas.

All that said, you're probably right. To tell you the truth, considering how poorly people appreciate liberty in this nation, there'll be something to be said for having a system of government that would be, if nothing else, more logical.

My last question to you is given the relative instability you see in the American future, how do you think that impacts the idea of an eventual North American Union? Would the imperial emergence necessarily seek to spread into Canada, and then perhaps Mexico?

reply to post by cassandranova


I think in someplaces the progressive vs. conservative dynamic could present a threat, but I think it would also have the potential to tear the state itself apart. Examples: California, where the state one day could be divided into northern and southern regions. In the southern US in many states, there is an ethnic/political divide that is large enough to be a potential issue. It could be bring rural and urban areas into conflict. I don't think it would lead to secession by the state governments though, but instead would represent terrorist and insurgent elements within the states.

One thing I should have mentioned earlier in regards to states and state governments is that many local and state governments would not survive the financial collapse. This would have a huge effect on determining if a state, city, or county might decide to officially revolt. Many of these governments depend on federal handouts and in the event the financial and economic system comes down, they will lose those handouts. Hyperinflation and high unemployment will further reduce tax revenue into those governments.

In some places authority could totally collapse, potentials include parts of Nevada, Illinois, Michigan, and California. In others, the people will band together, regardless of money, protecting and serving out of a sense of patriotic duty. Lastly there will be some, like Texas and Utah, who should bring in enough business and revenue to survive without federal intervention. Those that can't or won't maintain authority should see some form of federal intervention, either in the form of the US military or some type of Homeland Stability and Security Forces. It could be bad enough that in some state governments that they end up as defacto federal territories or commonwealths.

Keep in mind all of that is just during the chaos when the transition should be taking place. It would be during that chaos, that we see any coup, counter coup, revolts, or any form of civil war.

How does this transition impact North American and the potential for a continental union?

With the global economy in ashes, I could imagine that Canada, the US and Mexico might try to merge their economies in order to survive. I don't think the Mexican government may survive long enough to get around to summits and treaty signings. Based on the current situation in Mexico and what could happen if the global economy collapses, Mexico could end up looking like Afghanistan, with multiple narco warlords fighting each other for territory, while the central government either collapses or only controls Mexico City.

Instead of Mexico signing a treaty to become part of a NAU, what we may end up seeing is US-Canadian security and stability forces intervening in Mexico. In other words, Mexico loses its sovereignty and ends up being occupied by foreign troops then assimilated into a new supranational entity.

Canada on the other hand is far more stable and could attend talks to begin a process of integration. I think these talks could potentially push Quebec out of Canada, becoming a future problem that would have to be dealt with at some point.

One aspect I should mention is that I don't think integration talks or intervention in Mexico would take place during the transition though, but after the new stable government emerges in Washington DC. Once the new strong and stable government rises, the financial system is transformed, and the economy begins to recover, then we will see the Canadian government, among others, desire to be part of this new paradigm that has emerged as it offers order in a world of chaos.

If ancient Roman history is any guide and Greece becomes an analog for Western Europe, we won't see just an integration of North America but an Atlantic Union, incorporating Western Europe from the then collapsed EU.
Like the intervention in Mexico, I would fully expect US and Canadian forces to come to the aid of Europe, starting with the UK, then on to mainland Europe, eventually completing the circle of history when forces arrive in the city of Rome.

Take it just one step further. Do you see the formation of international blocs then, maybe centered around the West, Russia, China, etc., or the emergence of one global entity at that point?

Originally posted by cassandranova
Take it just one step further. Do you see the formation of international blocs then, maybe centered around the West, Russia, China, etc., or the emergence of one global entity at that point?

I aleady stated that In one of the timelines that I think might happen is a full fledged NWO

Originally posted by cassandranova
Take it just one step further. Do you see the formation of international blocs then, maybe centered around the West, Russia, China, etc., or the emergence of one global entity at that point?

I think an "Atlantic Union" would be the "West". I think it could lay the foundation for a world government centered around North America and Western Europe.

I think it could be the only supranational bloc post collapse, as China would disintegrate during the fall. China is not a homogenous entity, it is forced together by a strong central power in Beijing. When the global financial and economic system goes, China will go down with it, fragmenting into at least 3 countries. Stratfor is already forcasting that the PRC could down in 2020.

Russia depends on foreign nations to buy their energy and arms. Without any customers, Russia will face a terrible time. I could easily see them "walling" themselves off from the world, while embracing a new xenophobic totalitarian state similar to North Korea.

My bet is this "Western Imperial Union" or "Atlantic Union" will be the fastest to rise from the ashes and get back on its feet. The rest of the world still suffering from the effects of the collapse will look to it as a savior, something that can bring peace and order. That will likely spur a new era of neo-colonialism by Westerners as they liberate, pacify, and aid old friends and former enemies.

I've been spending the better part of today thinking about what you're saying, and the wild card for me in the scenario is non-state actors. Whereas there weren't really any of huge import back during the Roman period which you draw upon for inspiration, the role of transnational corporations and these massively invested public/private type banks like the Fed suggest the possibility of a class whose boundaries transcend nationalist lines.

I could envision a future without too much effort where weak states are desired throughout the world in the west as well as developing countries because it would afford an opportunity for these supercapitalized entities to start a new sort of feudal order. While the standards of living globally would decline, for those who were in the fortunate positions to take advantage, not having the hassles of govermental oversight might be considered a real benefit.

In America, in this scenario, the economic collapse would actually be encouraged and there wouldn't be any consolidation of power as you suggest. The capitalized entities would simply make sure a balance of powers persisted, that America remained weaker, and continued conducting their activities, exploiting all governmental actors for larger priviledges including privatization of security, further legal exemptions, and full control of trade and labor policy. It's a dismal view of the future, admittedly, but a possible one that varies differently from the national sovereignty model we seem to favor.

If this scenario played out, the closest analogue I could think of was the medieval Catholic church which was regressive, had a stable regime based on investment in a few wealthy leaders, a balance of power sufficient that no force could regularly challenge their authority, and the reliability of sure money coming into the system. It isn't so hard to imagine a so-called dark age happening here, and in many ways, I think the people would accept it more readily than your imperial scenario.

I can think of many people on this site, for instance, who would prefer such a state in disarray so long as they had freedom de jure as opposed to a more effectively structured empire like you posit.

I hope I'm wrong, I don't have a prediction I favor, but I think this is a possible alternative. What holds me back from making judgment is the relative strength and loyalty of bankers and transnational allies as compared to the military base of the US. A funny thing that they've largely been allied, but if that changes, I think that may be the real battle the future holds, through many proxies to be fought.