CDZ Things Will Get Worse Until US has Oligarch Change

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by JimBowie1958, Feb 20, 2018.

  1. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Thanks Received:
    7,956
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +35,686
    It is interesting if you look at thge history of the Byzantine Emprie that they have this patter of slow degeneration, then they get a new dynasty who sweeps aside the old rot, then that dynasty after a few generation resumes decline until they have their next n ew dynasty.

    Byzantine Empire under the Isaurian dynasty - Wikipedia

    Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty - Wikipedia

    Cometopuli dynasty - Wikipedia

    Komnenian restoration - Wikipedia

    Laskaris - Wikipedia

    But eventually the entire culture was so degenerate that they could not be restored and the 4th Crusade put them out of their misery.

    We dont have a monarch or Emperor here in the US, but we do have an oligarchy of wealthy elites that are so morally corrupt that you cant really accuse them of something so vile it goes beyond reasonable suspicion, lol.

    So we have to have a cultural change that marginalizes the wealthy in favor of those who are stil moral patriots, or things will get so bad that someone outside will do it for us.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. william the wie
    Online

    william the wie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    13,039
    Thanks Received:
    1,586
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,844
    True. But outsiders are mostly even less honest and competent.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Tipsycatlover
    Online

    Tipsycatlover Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2016
    Messages:
    23,195
    Thanks Received:
    4,071
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +28,600
    Survival as a people is impossible if they are so diverse that they are only held together by threat of legal prosecution.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  4. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,768
    Aside from Achaemenid Persia and empires that lost wars of a global scale, has there ever been a global empire that by its own failings did not slowly wane?

    What?
    • Good God! I hope you are among the very few folks who construe that taking some 200+ years meets the letter and spirit of the phrase "put of misery."
    • Perhaps, however, you're instead having a "revisionist history" moment?
    The Byzantine Empire didn't fall until the early Renaissance (mid 1400s) after some 400 years of gradual decline. The 4th Crusade was in the early 1200s and lasted for two years.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  5. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Thanks Received:
    7,956
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +35,686
    A few, like Tibet, China, and the British Empire is still around.

    But it is the pattern of ebb and flow based on dynasty change that I am getting at.

    Lol, it was for dramatic effect, dude.

    Seriously, the Byzantines never recovered from the 4th crusade's sacking of the capital city.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,768
    Um....okay. TY for the clarification.



    Aside:
    FWIW, the imagery associated with "put out of one's misery" is that of a blink, i.e., "near or actual instantaneous demise." The 4th Crusade set the Byzantine Empire on course for a 200 year-long demise. The "dramatic effect" of using "put out of misery" to depict, albeit in summary fashion, the impact of the 4th Crusade on the Byzantine Empire is to either (1) presuppose the temporal context in place for the progression of events under discussion is geological, or (2) if the temporal context instead be scaled to the human history's experience, that turn of phrase misrepresents what actually happened and its progression because in that context, 200 years is not quick.
    • Ice caps ceasing to exist in the space of 200 years is quick.
    • A civilization (or portion of one) taking 200 years to cease to exist isn't quick.
      • 476 - Western Roman Empire Falls; Eastern Roman Empire "keeps on trucking"
      • Date ?? -- Justinian
      • Date ?? -- Heraclitus
      • 610 Somebody/something gets into Muhammad's head, resulting Islam's creation
      • ~1000 The Great Schism ("The MAX" was what we called it -- "Mutually Asserted eXcommunication")
      • ~1100 to 1250 - Crusades
      • ~1450 Ottomans solidify their subsumption of the eastern European, West Asian, and African territory that was former Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire
    While there are various way to convey in English the progression from what in math corresponds to the progression from a relative local minimum to an absolute one...

    [​IMG]

    ....doing so doesn't require particularly elaborate language. It requires only attention to detail, which, doesn't take great effort. [1] To wit....
    ...would have, without "fancy diction," been fully accurate and comparably succinct/short as...
    ...and eliminate the risk that any reader might misunderstand your meaning. Alternatively, merely using quotation marks....
    ...would do, though used in the abstract, the quotation-mark approach is somewhat ambiguous because while it conveys that one doesn't mean everything that is attendant to the impersonal phrase one places between quotation marks, it doesn't make clear what bits one does intend and which of them one does not. And let's be honest...Does anyone truly enjoy uncertainty?

    The point of the above: There's nothing wrong with injecting dramatic effect into one's expressions; however, one's communication is impaired when one delivers only the drama (the imagery and emotion) and none or not enough off the effect (what actually is/was/happened), as it were. When choosing between the two, omit the drama not the effect.​

    Note:
    1. It's -- "it" being the cognitive portion of paying attention to details -- supposed to be easy to do. Making it so is, after all, part of the point for all that reading and writing one is called to do in middle and high school -- so that upon graduating, and certainly upon reaching middle age, it's effectively child's play to do so.

    Okay, but that pattern is just that, a pattern; it doesn't have a foregone outcome, aside from when the pattern results in hubris and/or degeneracy that empowers inept monarchs, almost or actually in a one-after-the-other succession. Absent that, however, well founded and well organized empires can and have endured on what one might describe as a mix of sociopolitical and organizational "autopilot," while they suffer their way through the reigns of various inept leaders.



    Aside:
    FWIW, the phenomenon of "endurance by 'autopilot' " isn't unique to nation states. Firms, large and small, do it too. For example:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2018

Share This Page