IMO the West is in the last part of what Toynbee called a civilization's "Time of Troubles". WW2 should of resulted in a universal state, but the potential universal state (the US) refused to become one, choosing instead to be the "first among equals" with other Western and Westernized states (NATO). I think that by the end of the next saeculum the West will have entered it's universal state phase, with the universal state either being a corporate oligarchy or a federation of many microstates depending on the outcomes of the next 2 Crises. The 3rd Crisis era will result in The Western Universal State will either become, or be absorbed, by a global state.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO the West is in the last part of what Toynbee called a civilization's "Time of Troubles". WW2 should of resulted in a universal state, but the potential universal state (the US) refused to become one, choosing instead to be the "first among equals" with other Western and Westernized states (NATO). I think that by the end of the next saeculum the West will have entered it's universal state phase, with the universal state either being a corporate oligarchy or a federation of many microstates depending on the outcomes of the next 2 Crises. The 3rd Crisis era will result in The Western Universal State will either become, or be absorbed, by a global state.

Ave Caesar! If only we get one as competent as Li'l Augie ... or for that matter, as competent as Big Julie! Alas, what we have would make Pompey look like Einstein + Gandhi.

World Civilizations: The Global Experience by Stearns, Adas & Schwartz.

"...What the long-term outcome of the West's population slide will be remains unclear; many analysts argue that since the Industrial Revolution, rapid population growth is a source of weakness, not a strength. At the very least, the West's population stagnation opened Europe and the United States to rapid immigration from other societies. Here was a new pattern that might either add to Western dynamism or lead to crippling new tensions."

Immigration has resulted in increased tensions so far as "Eurabia" is concerned. In hindsight, it is very foolish to let Mulim fundamentalists gain a foothold on your territory.

One obvious strategy is assimilation.

Individuals may have valuable talents, so their admission as first generation immigrants may be worthwhile...with pressures on their kids to assimilate.

On the other hand, could some cultures complement ours?

A given society may have a dominant ethos: a warrior ethos, a religious ethos, an aesthetic ethos.... The West has a mechanistic ethos. [Which makes us different from the ancient Greeks, who had an aesthetic ethos (not too surprising that their science and technology efforts petered out during the Hellenistic Age)].

The military is an obvious example. Gurkhas in the British Army. The Byzantine Empire and their (horse archer?) proxies.

But what about other aspects of society? Could an ecology of cultures-through selective immigration-arise?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Immigration has resulted in increased tensions so far as "Eurabia" is concerned. In hindsight, it is very foolish to let Mulim fundamentalists gain a foothold on your territory.

One obvious strategy is assimilation.

Fundamentalist Islam is likely to win few converts in the West.

I cannot be convinced that Islam is not the wave of the future; it seems to have more capacity for survival against secularism and modernity than does any other major religion. Fundamentalist Islam can reject Descartes, Darwin, and Freud -- but it does so violently at the risk of falling to those who can assimilate Descartes, Darwin, and Freud.

Islam can win the West when it proves itself capable of adopting the richness of Western civilization while offering certainties that Christianity and atheism cannot offer. Islam advanced in the Levant, North Africa, Iran, central Asia, Sind, and Indonesia by adapting to local circumstances while remaining true to the Koran.

Individuals may have valuable talents, so their admission as first generation immigrants may be worthwhile...with pressures on their kids to assimilate.

Could Islam adapt to something so American as baseball? Could someone interpret Islam to demand democracy? To make a distinction between art that depicts living things so long as it is not intentionally or recklessly idolatrous? Were I a Christian preacher I might state that fine art is not idolatrous -- but pornography is.

As heavily as we Americans drink, Islam would have to adopt to American drinking habits. That might be difficult.

On the other hand, could some cultures complement ours?

The cultural heritage of America is the steady assimilation of things desirable, if not native. Pinatas at birthday parties, pizza and hamburger, grand opera, Impressionist art, and the Nutcracker ballet and its music are not originally American even if we incorporate them into our lives.

A given society may have a dominant ethos: a warrior ethos, a religious ethos, an aesthetic ethos.... The West has a mechanistic ethos. [Which makes us different from the ancient Greeks, who had an aesthetic ethos (not too surprising that their science and technology efforts petered out during the Hellenistic Age)].

So did their aesthetic which became homogenized and stale during Roman times because the Romans f---ed up their rule of the civilized world very badly.

The military is an obvious example. Gurkhas in the British Army. The Byzantine Empire and their (horse archer?) proxies.

But what about other aspects of society? Could an ecology of cultures-through selective immigration-arise?

Naw, America seems to have its shares of persons of aesthetic ethos and military ethos.

I have much Russian, Hungarian, and Italian music in my (classical) music collection -- and I have no Russian, Hungarian, or Italian ancestry in modern times. I love Japanese prints -- and I am not Japanese.

I think that the West will once again be as it was during "La Belle Epoque", the period in European history from 1870 to 1914. For us that was the half-century after the Civil War. Europe's monarchies must and will be restored, and for that matter, the world's. The EU will be an international organization, not some pathetic attempt at a superstate that will never work. I'll have more thoughts for the world as it should be all over this forum.

Originally Posted by sean '90

I think that the West will once again be as it was during "La Belle Epoque", the period in European history from 1870 to 1914. For us that was the half-century after the Civil War. Europe's monarchies must and will be restored, and for that matter, the world's. The EU will be an international organization, not some pathetic attempt at a superstate that will never work. I'll have more thoughts for the world as it should be all over this forum.

You know, I always find it odd when someone believes that the world will turn out exactly as they want it to. Who is being played?

Originally Posted by sean '90

I think that the West will once again be as it was during "La Belle Epoque", the period in European history from 1870 to 1914. For us that was the half-century after the Civil War. Europe's monarchies must and will be restored, and for that matter, the world's. The EU will be an international organization, not some pathetic attempt at a superstate that will never work. I'll have more thoughts for the world as it should be all over this forum.

While the Gilded Age and on may have been La Belle Epoque in Europe, it was a pretty sucky time in the U.S. The Reconstruction/Gilded Age 1T was possibly the most politically acrimonious and economically unfair 1T in American history, the Era of Good Feelings and American High being much more equitable and positive examples.

I think it's interesting that a fellow 1990 cohort is taking such an unpopular (if bold, and kudos for originality) position, advocating the restoration of classical monarchies. Maybe I missed something you wrote, but I am curious...do you support unitary monarchies in which the king/queen rules, or "semi-monarchies" in which Parliament is a coequal branch of government?

Originally Posted by 1990

While the Gilded Age and on may have been La Belle Epoque in Europe, it was a pretty sucky time in the U.S. The Reconstruction/Gilded Age 1T was possibly the most politically acrimonious and economically unfair 1T in American history, the Era of Good Feelings and American High being much more equitable and positive examples.

I think it's interesting that a fellow 1990 cohort is taking such an unpopular (if bold, and kudos for originality) position, advocating the restoration of classical monarchies. Maybe I missed something you wrote, but I am curious...do you support unitary monarchies in which the king/queen rules, or "semi-monarchies" in which Parliament is a coequal branch of government?

LOL, since when is Monarchy original?

We must be pretty modern!

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

LOL, since when is Monarchy original?

We must be pretty modern!

Well, if something has been out-of-style for long enough, suggesting a revival (or perhaps "resurrection" is a better term) of it becomes original indeed. Defending monarchy in a post-1776 America is pretty unheard of.

Originally Posted by 1990

Well, if something has been out-of-style for long enough, suggesting a revival (or perhaps "resurrection" is a better term) of it becomes original indeed. Defending monarchy in a post-1776 America is pretty unheard of.

Agreed! It's quite bizarre. I was unaware that American Monarchists EXISTED in this day and age (okay, not really, but I've never known one personally). And a 16 year old one? Woo wee!

I usually like to speculate just how people came to their political beliefs. It seems that this Monarchist prefers someone to represent the country in a patriotic fashion without being held to daily partisanship. I wonder how he came to his conclusion?

The solution to the west's current problems varie. For the US, an abandonment of corporatism, and the policy of policing the world. This would be followed by a retrenchment of domestic industry and a concentration of our assets and power in the anglosphere. A major policy goal should be for the US to agitate for a unified anglosphere. This would be followed by expanding US influence to definately include latin america and the more promising of the african countries. This expansion would be accompanied by a policy of controlling trade, and militarization of our nation.

For Europe, I agree with sean the the EU as its currently constituted is untenable. Europe should follow a path of nationalism if it wants to recover it's former influence. Forming a monarchy would be untenable except perhaps as a ceremonial symbol of nationalism. The more powerful of the european states would be recommended to have a policy of taking their weaker neighbors under their protective wing in order to defend from future threats such as the muslim world and (possibly) russia.

MichaelEaston, I am 17.

Originally Posted by 1990

While the Gilded Age and on may have been La Belle Epoque in Europe, it was a pretty sucky time in the U.S. The Reconstruction/Gilded Age 1T was possibly the most politically acrimonious and economically unfair 1T in American history, the Era of Good Feelings and American High being much more equitable and positive examples.

I think it's interesting that a fellow 1990 cohort is taking such an unpopular (if bold, and kudos for originality) position, advocating the restoration of classical monarchies. Maybe I missed something you wrote, but I am curious...do you support unitary monarchies in which the king/queen rules, or "semi-monarchies" in which Parliament is a coequal branch of government?

1990, I actually suppport a little of both. I do indeed support a "ruling" monarch, but not as an absolute monarch. I also support a strong parliament, but not as a greater or lesser branch of government than the monarch. I also favor a strong upper house of parliament, mostly composed of the nobility of the realm, to act as a check on the monarch and the lower house. My viewpoint is also known as Anglomonarchism, as the tripartite system of Sovereign, Lords, and Commons, was best developed in Britain. Our Founding Fathers developed a republican equivalent to this system in our Constitution, which is why I am just fine with America being a republic. We generally work just fine as one, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The solution to the west's current problems varie. For the US, an abandonment of corporatism, and the policy of policing the world. This would be followed by a retrenchment of domestic industry and a concentration of our assets and power in the anglosphere. A major policy goal should be for the US to agitate for a unified anglosphere. This would be followed by expanding US influence to definately include latin america and the more promising of the african countries. This expansion would be accompanied by a policy of controlling trade, and militarization of our nation.

For Europe, I agree with sean the the EU as its currently constituted is untenable. Europe should follow a path of nationalism if it wants to recover it's former influence. Forming a monarchy would be untenable except perhaps as a ceremonial symbol of nationalism. The more powerful of the european states would be recommended to have a policy of taking their weaker neighbors under their protective wing in order to defend from future threats such as the muslim world and (possibly) russia.

I do not accept the idea of "ceremonial" monarchies, the monarch needs to have some political power. I would love to see a modern-day resurrection of the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Russian Empire.

Originally Posted by sean '90

I do not accept the idea of "ceremonial" monarchies, the monarch needs to have some political power. I would love to see a modern-day resurrection of the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Russian Empire.

My God, why? All three empires fell for a reason. Sure, Nazism and Soviet Communism weren't much better, but the empires fell for a reason.

I think democracy is the way to go. It just needs to be tended to and nurtured, something the original Founders realized, and something we've forgotten in our seemingly neverending indulgent fest of complacency.

Nazism and Soviet Communism would'nt have existed in the first place in the German and Russian Empires had not fallen due to the disaster of the First World War. If the Austro-Hungarian empire hadn't collapsed, again due to the First World War, there wouldn't have been all that ethnic violence of the Yugoslavian breakup back in the '90s, nor could there have been an Iron Curtain. Oh, and Austria-Hungary was the most multinational & multicultural state that ever existed! Emperor Franz Josef could speak fluent German, Hungarian, and Czech, and had a fair knowledge of Polish and Italian! Our President can barely even speak English! We've done multiculturalism very poorly in this Unraveling. (shame on America!) I'm sure that Franz Josef, Franz Ferdinand(if he hadn't been killed), Blessed Karl, and the current Emperor, Otto would all do a lot better at managing the multinational Austro-Hungarian Empire.

I don't think that the Russian Empire fell because of WWI. WWI was not yet over when the Revolution happened (WWI ended in 1918, the Revolution was October 1917). And the Revolution, like all revolutions, was about a mass of people taking down an unresponsive and corrupt government which was doing nothing for them.

Blaming the Russian Revolution on WWI is like blaming the Cuban Revolution on the Korean War and saying that "if only Batista had stayed in power, Cuba would be a much better country now".

Fact is, Batista (and Latin American right-wing U.S.-backed military dictators are as close to monarchs as you get down there) was unresponsive and corrupt, like all emperors (or dictators) have eventually become. Why, as we speak Pervez Musharraf's government is unraveling in Pakistan, and again, there is a reason that autocratic forms of government always fail/end. Which is why I still don't understand why you think a monarchy would be a superior choice. Just look at history.

(At the same time, I appreciate you taking this very unorthodox position. I try to stay open-minded, and do want to know your reasoning.)

I Think that Sean has identified many of the current problems but has the wrong solution. A more viable solution, again is to form an anglophone union with britain, canada, austrailia, etc. Once that is complete an expansionist policy directed toward latin america and africa to establish an anglophone dominated empire in those regions. This would be nessessary in order to establish breathing space in regards to rival great powers.

As for europe the main problem is the cumbersome nature of the current EU, the increasing tax burden, low birth rate(partially due to the tax burden). The solution there would be to encourage nationalism and decentralize certain aspects of the government. Finally the armed forces of european nations would have to be expanded if they want to be serious contenders in the international arena.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I Think that Sean has identified many of the current problems but has the wrong solution. A more viable solution, again is to form an anglophone union with britain, canada, austrailia, etc. Once that is complete an expansionist policy directed toward latin america and africa to establish an anglophone dominated empire in those regions. This would be nessessary in order to establish breathing space in regards to rival great powers.

As for europe the main problem is the cumbersome nature of the current EU, the increasing tax burden, low birth rate(partially due to the tax burden). The solution there would be to encourage nationalism and decentralize certain aspects of the government. Finally the armed forces of european nations would have to be expanded if they want to be serious contenders in the international arena.

You are reminding me of the time when you were giving us quotes from New Prophecy and the like.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Nazism and Soviet Communism would'nt have existed in the first place in the German and Russian Empires had not fallen due to the disaster of the First World War.

Possibly. You can't be sure what will be happen if you remove a block of history. It's like... Jenga!

If the Austro-Hungarian empire hadn't collapsed, again due to the First World War, there wouldn't have been all that ethnic violence of the Yugoslavian breakup back in the '90s, nor could there have been an Iron Curtain.

Yup, the world would be just perfect if the Monarchs had remained in place. I really don't think it was possible for the Monarchies to hold on much longer. If World War One had been miraculously avoided (and it would have to be a miracle), the old system wouldn't last through the Second One, which by generational theory, was unavoidable in Western Europe.

WW2 as we know it would never have happened without WW1. Kaiser Wilhelm II lived on until 1941, and do you really think he would have let the Nazis into power. Russia actually did collapse b/c of the First World War, it simply could not handle any war where events went badly for it. Same with Austria-Hungary. I won't deny that the latter two empires probably would have collapsed during the Depression, which would've happened anyways without WW1, as per generational theory and Keynesian economics.

Originally Posted by sean '90

WW2 as we know it would never have happened without WW1.

Obviously things would be different, but I can't tell what I would change.

Kaiser Wilhelm II lived on until 1941, and do you really think he would have let the Nazis into power.

Can't say. He might not have had a choice. The simple truth is that we can never know.

Russia actually did collapse b/c of the First World War, it simply could not handle any war where events went badly for it. Same with Austria-Hungary. I won't deny that the latter two empires probably would have collapsed during the Depression, which would've happened anyways without WW1, as per generational theory and Keynesian economics.

OK.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You are reminding me of the time when you were giving us quotes from New Prophecy and the like.

While the notion of an arab war of conquest is nothing more than a right-wing fearmongering fantasy. You had to have noticed the growing economic political and ideological stagnation in america, particularly over the past decade or so.

I EMPHATICALLY DO NOT SUPPORT AN 'ANGLOPHONE UNION'!!!!!!!!!! That just smacks of American imperialism to me. We could join the British Commonwealth as a Commonwealth Republic, I've no objection to that.