Recently I had the pleasure of reading The Law of Civilization and Decline, by American historian, Brooks Adams.
Brooks Adams had a distinguished lineage: great-grandson of Pres John Adams, grandson of Pres John Quincy Adams, and son of diplomat & author, Charles Francis Adams. Educated at Harvard, Brooks became secretary to his diplomat father and wrote several books.
Brooks Adams was concerned with the process by which societies rise and fall. His work preceded that of Spengler in seeing how Money became a power in its own right, which subverts government and lays the foundation for collapse.
In 1898, he wrote The Law of Civilization and Decline, in which he made the case that commercial civilizations rise and fall based on predictable patterns.
If you read my thread on Sir John Bagot Glubb’s The Fate of Empires (1978), you’ll see that Glubb made a later case for all empires rising and falling on predictable patterns. This kind of history, known loosely as the Social Cycle Theory, is interesting.
Below are excerpts from Brooks Adams's The Law of Civilization and Decline in the chapter on Rome:
"This supremacy of the economic instinct transformed all the relations of life, the domestic as well as the military.
"The family ceased to be a unit, the members of which cohered from the necessity of self-defence, and became a business association.
"Marriage took the form of a contract, dissoluble at the will of either party, and, as it was somewhat costly, it grew rare.
"As with the drain of their bullion to the East, which crushed their farmers, the Romans were conscious, as Augustus said, that sterility must finally deliver their city into the hand of the barbarians.
"They knew this and they strove to avert their fate, and there is little in history more impressive than the impotence of the ancient civilization in its conflict with nature.
"In vain, celibacy was made almost criminal. In vain, celibates were declared incapable of inheriting, while fathers were offered every bribe, were preferred in appointments to office, were even given the choice seats at games;
"...in the words of Tacitus, “not for that did marriage and children increase, for the advantages of childlessness prevailed.” All that was done was to breed a race of informers, and to stimulate the lawyers to fresh chicane.
"The evolution of this centralized society was as logical as every other work of nature. When force reached the stage where it expressed itself exclusively through money, the governing class ceased to be chosen because they were valiant or eloquent, artistic, learned, or devout, and were selected solely because they had the faculty of acquiring and keeping wealth.
"As long as the weak retained enough vitality to produce something which could be absorbed, this oligarchy was invincible;
"...and for very many years after the native peasantry of Gaul and Italy had perished under the load, new blood injected from more tenacious races kept the dying civilization alive.
"The weakness of the monied class lay in their very power, for they not only killed the producer, but in the strength of their acquisitiveness they failed to propagate themselves.
"With the peasantry the case was worse. By the 2nd Century barbarian labour had to be imported to till the fields, and even the barbarians lacked the tenacity of life necessary to endure the strain. They ceased to breed, and the population dwindled.
"Then, somewhat suddenly, the collapse came. With shrinking numbers, the sources of wealth ran dry, the revenue failed to pay the police, and on the efficiency of the police the life of this unwarlike civilization hung.
"In early ages, every Roman had been a land-owner, and every land-owner had been a soldier, serving without pay. To fight had been as essential a part of life as to plough.
"But by the fourth century military service had become commercial; the legions were as purely an expression of money as the bureaucracy itself.
"Rome owed her triumphs over Hannibal and Pyrrhus to the valour of her infantry, rather than to the genius of her generals; but from Marius the census ceased to be the basis of recruitment, and the rich refused to serve in the ranks.
This was equivalent in itself to a social revolution; for, from the moment when the wealthy succeeded in withdrawing themselves from service, and the poor saw in it a trade, the citizen ceased to be a soldier, and the soldier became a mercenary.
END
"From that time the army could be used for “all purposes, provided that they could count on their pay and their booty."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/8 🧵
What Trump Should Do, According to Machiavelli
It’s obvious that this term will not be like the first: Trump has his cabinet picks all ready, each with a mandate. While American politics is slow and complicated, he appears to be ready to hit the ground, running.
2
Niccolo Machiavelli was a Florentine philosopher, historian, and diplomat during the Italian Renaissance. His most famous book, “The Prince” (1513), is an instruction guide for rulers. Its objective is to teach how to rule effectively, (even if not morally).
3
Of note is Ch. 8: “Concerning Those Who Have Obtained a Principality by Wickedness.”
I’m not implying that Trump won the election through treachery. However, a good portion of the electorate, fueled by the spiritual catamites comprising much of our MSM, will view him, at best, as a usurper.
1/10
I’ve been enjoying the book, 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed, by Eric H. Cline (@digkabri).
Great information, especially the small treasures like the one about the Battle of Megiddo, which I'll summarize.
@digkabri 2
Pharaoh Thutmose III ruled Egypt from 1479 to 1425 BC, and we know much about his rule because he had the details of his military campaigns recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun at Karnak in Egypt.
@digkabri 3
In 1457 BC, 21-year-old Thutmose fought the Battle of Megiddo (Armageddon) against Canaanite chiefs who had rebelled against his ascension and rule.
In the 1960s, a nuclear weapons researcher and inventor, named Robert Mainhardt founded a company with another inventor, Arthur Biehl, founded a company called “MBAssociates,” with the aim of revolutionizing firearms by using rocket technology.
2
They invented The Gyrojet: a rocket launcher in the form of a pistol or carbine. Unlike traditional firearms, these weapons fired self-propelled rockets instead of bullets.
3
A Gyrojet bullet was a .49 or .51cal rocket, which looked something like a small artillery round with vents for gasses to escape. When fired, the rocket had a low velocity (& almost no recoil) but accelerated up to 1,250ft/sec with about 2x the muzzle energy of a .45 ACP.
1
In the late 1970s, a Canadian psychologist, named Bruce Alexander, wondered if drug addiction was more about the drugs, themselves, or about certain aspects of society.
To find out, he did some experiments with rats.
2
Prior studies already showed some effects of isolation on rats.
When placed alone in cages, and offered two water bottles (one with plain water and the other with heroin or cocaine), the rats tended to keep drinking the drugged water until they overdosed and died.
3
For his own study, Alexander built the Rat Park: a 200sqft (18.6 m2) housing colony, 200x bigger than a standard laboratory cage.
In it, he put 16–20 rats of both sexes, with an abundance of food, balls wheels for play, and private places for mating and giving birth.
1
These recent posts by @Empty_America & @Ancient_Daze got me thinking about the absence of Right to Roam in America. I believe it's downstream culturally from the frontier.
I can’t stress enough how big an effect it had on American culture.
@Empty_America @Ancient_Daze 2
I welcome non-Americans who wish to understand more about America to read the 1920 book, “The Frontier in American History,” by Frederick Jackson Turner. gutenberg.org/cache/epub/229…
@Empty_America @Ancient_Daze 3
Turner earned his PhD in history from Johns Hopkins University in 1890. He taught at the University of Wisconsin-Madison until 1910, and then at Harvard. He was known for his “Frontier Thesis.”
I want to point out before starting that I hope I’m wrong. Normal reform, through laws with the common good in mind, is structurally impossible and we’re at the point where only a catastrophe will bring reform.
2
Everyone from American Maximalists to everyday patriots will bristle at this. Again: I hope I’m wrong.
I also have yet to encounter any who give structural or concrete reasons why I might be wrong. Their arguments have boiled down essentially to just… faith, really.
3
There is an entire school of thought that says this is a natural process. I largely agree, but still take exception to the unforced errors which got the US to this point. Arguably, those unforced errors are part of the process.