It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is America's decline a foregone conclusion?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 06:35 AM
It has been said that the lifespan of any empire is finite, and can be tracked through stages from rise to fall.

History says this very well may be true. The parallels of various empires are uncanny.

Is it too late for America to change direction?

The essay is a bit long, but if you like an historical perspective, well worth the read.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 06:42 AM
a reply to: Mach2

Is it too late for America to change direction?

Empires are driven by greedy, ambitious men.

Greed knows no bounds, why empires always wind up on the ash heap of history.

Edit: What matters most is the part we play as individuals. Are we part of the solution or part of the problem?
edit on 29-10-2017 by intrptr because: Edit:

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 06:48 AM
a reply to: intrptr

Greed does seem to be the "beginning of the end". But empire are usually not born of greed. That comes a couple generations later.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 06:48 AM
Still reading, but thought the first part should be in the thread.

Learning from history 'The only thing we learn from history,' it has been said, 'is that men never learn from history', ...a sweeping generalization perhaps, but one which the chaos in the world today goes far to confirm. What then can be the reason why, in a society which claims to probe every problem, the bases of history are still so completely unknown? Several reasons for the futility of our historical studies may be suggested.

First, our historical work is limited to short periods - the history of our own country, or that of some past age which, for some reason, we hold in respect.

Second, even within these short periods, the slant we give to our narrative is governed by our own vanity rather than by objectivity. If we are considering the history of our own country, we write at length of the periods when our ancestors were prosperous and victorious, but we pass quickly over their shortcomings or their defeats. Our people are represented as patriotic heroes, their enemies as grasping imperialists, or subversive rebels. In other words, our national histories are propaganda, not well- balanced investigations.

Third, in the sphere of world history, we study certain short, usually unconnected, periods, which fashion at certain epochs has made popular. Greece 500 years before Christ, and the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire are cases in point. The intervals between the 'great periods' are neglected. Recently Greece and Rome have become largely discredited, and history tends to become increasingly the parochial history of our own countries.

I completely agree that our education system is skewed towards teaching to exams, and those creating the exams only highlight the success of our history. And that history is written by the winners, or conquerors.

We’re doomed to repeat it.

edit on 10/29/2017 by Lolliek because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 06:50 AM
a reply to: Mach2

Is it too late for America to change direction?

I guess you always have to cling to some kind of hope that things can change for the better, but on the face of it America is rotten from the inside out and would appear to have learned nothing from the lessons of history. There appears to be some form of quasi-government operating within the U.S. which has taken the law unto themselves and decided they can do whatever they want, which is not just disrespectful to U.S. citizens, but everyone on the planet.

If American society was as close to perfect as one can be, then the policy of enforcing their way of life onto other countries might not seem so bad, however America the country itself is a train wreck which has seeped blood across the globe. And unfortunately, countries which claim to be ally with America have also followed this suit.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 06:52 AM
a reply to: Lolliek

Thanks Lolliek. I was hoping to find a few ppl that would actually take the time to read and discuss.

I don't agree will all of it, but I find no argument for most, and it saddens me.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 06:57 AM
a reply to: Mach2

Well considering your link is to bibleapocalypse lol. I’m not sure you want it heading in the right direction..

Just as an observation, human advancement is inherently tied to what system runs their civilization.

You can make an excellent case that belief in an omnipotent being who controls everything..

The earliest civilizations were polytheistic and did not think their gods controlled everything. They thought the gods would give a push now and then, but humanity controlled the broad strokes.

The Athenians just paid lip service to their pantheon, but none of the great thinkers truely believed.. or if they did. They didn’t think humanity could influence the gods much so we were on our on.

And Greek technology and culture flourished..

Then came the romans who returned to a little more religious of a culture and advancement kinda plateaus. In Rome’s early days technology flourished, but by its peak tech doesn’t improve much, but they make a whole lot of it.

Then enter Christianity and the belief that humanity is irrelevant and everything is part of gods plan. Then the all advancement in technology basiclly stops.

The Roman Empire splits and falls leading to the dark and Middle Ages where pretty much only armor and weaponry improved. FOR A THOUSAND YEARS!!!

Ceaser and his 50k Roman army couldn’t hold Britain. The celts couldn’t beat them in a full on battle, but they definitely made them pack up and go home.

Then 1000 years later 3-5 thousand Vikings bye lay waste to all of England..

The celts NOR the romans wouldn’t even have noticed 5,000 Vikings..

Technology and advancement doesn’t start in earnest again until society turns secular.. and when it does within 2 centuries we go to the moon and have smart phones.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 07:00 AM
a reply to: Mach2

It's difficult to take lessons from history when elements inside the US are constantly rewriting it or destroying it.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 07:02 AM
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Another outward change which invariably marks the transition from the Age of Conquests to the Age of Affluence is the spread of defensiveness.

The nation, immensely rich, is no longer interested in glory or duty, but is only anxious to retain its wealth and its luxury.

It is a period of defensiveness, from the Great Wall of China, to Hadrian's Wall on the Scottish Border, to the Maginot Line in France in 1939.

Money being in better supply than courage, subsidies instead of weapons are employed to buy off enemies. To justify this departure from ancient tradition, the human mind easily devises its own justification. Military readiness, or aggressiveness, is denounced as primitive and immoral.

Civilized peoples are too proud to fight.

Point taken, but historically the end of military projection marks the beginning of the decline. That is not to judge the morality of it, but it is a common theme.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 07:04 AM
a reply to: Mach2

First comes greed, then centralized control, another word is Nationalism. Control of currency, institutions, education, religion, the state voice thru Media in newspapers, radio and TV.

Build big cities, group everyone there, then fleece them and build armies to conquer the world.

First though, greed. Greed became acceptable when it renamed itself "thrift".

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 07:09 AM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

While there is a lot of garbage on that site, the referenced essay is supported by historical "fact" (as we know them anyway).

Religion, in whatever form, and the decline into decadence does play a large role in the apparent cycle.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 09:00 AM
a reply to: Mach2

After skimming the article...I’m not sure what his conclusion really is..

I’m a big history buff and I think if boiled down to its lowest common denominator...

Civilizations fall the second those running the civilation fail to provide a decent standard of living relative to the upper classes, for enough of the population to protect it from the everyone else.

But the problem with the decatence argument is that....


A low budget brothel slave in Rome would have a far more decatant life than a cave man.

I live an arguably more decatant life today than a king in the Middle Ages might have.

So there is no hard and fast yard stick to measure decatance.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 09:18 AM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I didn't really agree with that correlation either, but I think he was using the term "decadent" more in terms of loss of whatever "moral values" were holding the fabric of the given society together causing a schism.

I think the conclusion he was drawing was that we would be well served to study history more closely, but even then admitted that it may not make a difference.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 09:24 AM
a reply to: Mach2

We artificially and incorrectly rate a nation by it's power in the world but the true measure of a nation is only found in how happy or miserable it's population is.

Is the us population happy or not.

Not just a select group on wall street or a few military general's but the down at heel's common yank's.

Economically yes.

Militarily Yes but not yet toppled from the top spot and not likely to be any time soon and that is only by conventional arm's because despite the rise of the technological sophistication of Asia the US is sitting on some pretty amazing technology that the general public AND any competing nation's have not even conceived of yet, mostly hidden under the pretense of national security and also locked away by corporation's whom are answerable to the ptb in the US.

The reason's for hiding this world changing tech are many, power and control over the GLOBAL economy by a small elite click are one of the main one's and if the US is ever to regain it's Glory it shall have to take that hidden science and technology OUT of there hand's and put it back into it's own government's hand's to use and to release slowly and wisely as is necessary to benefit the economy of the US and it's allies.

That elite - internationalists whom have no allegiance but to themselves so not all elite I am generalizing maybe a little too much but you catch my meaning - by the way are the real enemy's domestic for the US BUT were power and money is concerned these day's there is no real honor left and wealth supersedes many people's obligation's, there oath's and there allegiance's.

Nothing is broken though that can not be fixed but the longer the ruin is allowed to accumulate the harder that fix shall be to implement.

edit on 29-10-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 09:25 AM
It seems that all things have a natural life cycle. Things start small, grow, mature, age and finally die. IMO a civilization is about the same.

A clan becomes a village and grows into a town that becomes a city state. The city state conquers it neighbors and becomes a country. The country grows in influence and reaches a peak until it stagnates, gets weakened and then is conquered or otherwise falls from power and influence. Some cultures last a long time like ancient Egypt, their influence can be felt long after they're gone, but none last forever.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 11:31 AM
a reply to: Mach2


When Rome did all its conquering and enslaving they weren’t “being greedy?!?

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 11:32 AM
a reply to: Mach2

Like being all hung ho on slavery and marrying off 12 year olds???

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: Mach2

Fair enough.

I won’t claim to have read it all, but didn’t see any of the normal Christian tripe I was expecting from that site.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:09 PM
a reply to: Mach2

Morality is relative as well.

After a battle people used to like up the defeated and murder them all. At that point slavery was actually an up grade in morality.

Hell it was likely even one of the defeated who was the first to suggest:

“Instead of killing ya, why don’t we all work for you?? Forever?? Come one man better for you and better for us!”

So how do you ever measure decatance or morality EXCEPT in relation to how the upper tier is treated/lives???

If we agree that’s the case, then that means the major issue is wealth distribution.

The point at which those at the top leave relativly too little for those at the bottom. A civilization falls.

But even that’s questionable because I think wealth distribution is at its worst ever. So that means civilizations have improved as it got worse!!

So I’m not even sure any of that works..

I believe what he is referring to is the “wooden shoes, silk shoes”dynamic that ancient historians were all about , but modern historians tend to disagree with.

Basiclly clay a wooden show civilization conquests a silk shoe civilization, then the wooden show group gets fat and lazy and starts wearing silk shoes. Only to be conquered by the next wooden shoe group.

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:20 PM
a reply to: Mach2

It's not merely a symptom of America, its the story of mankind.

And unless we change our entire perception our thinking about who we are and how to conduct ourselves its a foregone conclusion to the tune of the extinction of the species, in this Brave New Century.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in