Ive always thought parasites were responsible for bringing down, every empire, every civilization, every great nation that ever was. Proving my observation is something else again. I always doubted that it could be proved although the danger from parasites is well-known as youll see in the enclosed article by Monty Pelerin. Because the danger to every society from parasites is almost impossible to prove today it follows that the depth of the danger must have been largely undocumented and ignored throughout the centuries; hence, parasites in relation to fallen civilizations has been largely relegated to the philosophical while a of history wars, despots, moral decay, and so on is taught ad infinitum. Had the cause and effect of parasites on civilization been as well-documented, and taught in history classes, as are wars and conquerors America would not now be in danger of falling from within. My interpretation of the Founding Fathers is that they attempted to move from the philosophical to the practical. There are many comments on the topic said by the Founders, but this example is good enough: Thomas Jefferson observed: If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. ... I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. Ratifying the Constitution showed that Colonial Americans were onto the dangers parasites represented. Sadly, the Founders included Promote the general welfare. in the preamble to the Constitution; little realizing those four words were the only wedge the parasites needed to do in this country. Preamble We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. In Article One it is clear that general welfare meant the nation not a specific group: Section 8 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; As far as parasites were concerned it mattered not what the Founders intended. Promote the general welfare was the parasite class ticket to a seat at the public trough, and thats all she wrote literally as well as figuratively. Proof: Since 1913 the parasites have been working towards abolishing everything in the Constitution except Promote the general welfare. Parasites defining the meaning of general welfare was essential to their success. In the hands of Socialists, general welfare always means living on tax dollars either directly or indirectly. The biggest mistake a once-free people made was forgetting the first rule: Never, ever, under any circumstance, let a parasite define the moral high ground. Once that mistake is made there is no morality except theirs. After the fall Post mortem never names parasites as the cause of death. There are a few exceptions, but more often than not parasites are not even listed on the death certificate as a contributing factor. Even while the parasites are feasting on a healthy host their destruction is whitewashed with humanitarian concerns, or simply pooh-poohed away. Ive always wondered why reputable historians said so little on the topic. Mr. Pelerin offers the following: The parasite-host analogy would seem to be a reasonable basis for a general theory explaining the rise and fall of civilizations. Assuming someone has not already milked it, it could make an interesting dissertation topic. However, in most academic settings implicating the State in the failure of civilizations could jeopardize your career. I cant say how it was before our welfare state turned higher education into Chateaubriand for the parasite class. Mr. Pelerin makes sense in todays America where the academy houses the fattest and most prolific parasites of all. It isnt likely they will knock their meal ticket. In my lifetime, I cant count the times Ive heard it said that America will be brought down from within. Nowadays, it seems that many Americans are resigned to their countrys demise. Looking at the long line of politicians of both parties who lie about everything its not hard to understand the weary resignation permeating the country. Pelerins great piece closes with this line: Government is the problem, everywhere. I think it should have read Government is the problem, everywhere, and for all time. The following is in two parts: August 19, 2011 Political Parisitology By Monty Pelerin On Thursday, the Dow was off about 500 points in the first hour, presumably based on fears of European bank and sovereign failures. The talking heads on CNBC were beside themselves, rationalizing what was happening and what should be done -- the Federal Reserve should initiate QE3, more fiscal stimulus should be used, etc. etc. All spoke of the need for government solutions and quick actions. By 10:30 I could take no more of "the government must do something." Governments cannot solve this problem. They caused it! Intervening will only make the problem worse. There is an inherent problem in government, all governments. It leads to situations like the current one and then progresses to much worse. This problem, discussed below, eventually leads to the collapse of economies if not civilizations. Politics As A Form of Parisitism The definition of a parasite is "an organism that spends a significant portion of its life in or on the living tissue of a host organism and which causes harm to the host without immediately killing it." Parisitology is the study of parasites. The definition of a parasite sounds like a perfect description of what government has become. The political class, its cronies and its dependents are parasites. The host is the productive sector of the economy. One lives at the expense of the other. One is "taking," the other "making." Parisitology appears to be a subject that should be an added requirement for Political Science (one of my favorite oxymorons). The notion of government preying on the productive is hardly a new concept. Cautions are easily found: Thomas Jefferson observed: If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. ... I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. More than 150 years ago, Frederic Bastiat commented on what he saw happening in France: It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds. Even the fall of Rome, widely attributed to "bread and circuses," attracted Will Rogers' attention: Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?" The parasite-host analogy would seem to be a reasonable basis for a general theory explaining the rise and fall of civilizations. Assuming someone has not already milked it, it could make an interesting dissertation topic. However, in most academic settings implicating the State in the failure of civilizations could jeopardize your career. The State of the US In the US, as in Europe, parasites have increasingly drained vitality from the productive class. This process began virtually from inception of the country. Initially the efforts and effects were imperceptible. Over time the boldness and number of parasites increased. Today, under the guise of social welfare and military adventurism, the productive host's survival is in jeopardy. Economic death is looming unless current trends are reversed soon and dramatically. The recent debt ceiling debacle was an opportunity to address the problem. The effort, instead, became a political charade. Ultimately it strengthened the parasites, again, by further weakening the host. Zerohedge pointed out: This debate is not about saving our economy or our global credit standing. This debate is about choosing our method of poison, and nothing more. That is to say, the outcome of the current "political clash" is irrelevant. Our economy was set on the final leg of total destabilization back in 2008, and no amount of spending reform, higher taxes, or austerity measures, are going to change that eventuality. Rejuvenation of the host is possible, but it will not happen. The reasons are not economic but political. Even if control of Congress and the Presidency shifts to the Republicans, it will not matter. Both political parties are parasitic. Only their genus differs, and that is more marketing rather than substantive differences. One may reasonably infer from the outcome of the debt charade that an implicit decision was made to kill the host. There were no spending cuts. There was hardly a slowdown in the planned rate of spending. Nor was any mechanism put in place to ensure that real cuts, if agreed upon, would be implemented by future Congresses.
PART TWO: Politics and Motivations Politicians, unlike actual parasites, generally understand the ramifications of decisions. Other than those with IQs below room temperature (make your own estimate of how many that be), politicians know the precarious condition of the host. Is it rational for an understanding parasite to destroy the host upon which it feeds? After all, if the host dies, so do the parasites. Public Choice theory argues that politicians behave no differently than ordinary people. Motivations are not suddenly changed upon entering government. Self-interest is still the driver whether in or out of government. Self-interest in government is especially troublesome because constraints imposed by markets are absent in government. Those in power are constrained only by the laws they impose upon themselves and periodic ballot box judgments. The power of incumbency suggests the latter is of limited effect. If self-interest conflicts with public service and laws are ineffective, self-interest is served. Non-economist David Brin suggests politicians have less character than the average citizen. He attributes this to a perverse self-selection process: It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power. Albert J. Nock preceded David Brin and was even more dam-ning in his assessment of the political class: Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class Public Choice theory does not depend upon the political class being evil. The argument rests on self-interest, regardless of the character of the person. Parasite Irrationality If Public Choice theory is valid (and it is), how does one explain the unwillingness of the political class to save the host? When the host dies, so do the parasites. Do we have an instance here where politicians are not acting in their own self-interest? The answer is that political parasites are acting rationally by allowing the host to perish. The key to understanding this anomaly is that curing the host would require radical medicine in the form of massive spending cuts. These cuts would require dismantling of various entitlements and much of the welfare state. Even with this medicine, it might be too little, too late to succeed. The reason that the cure will not even be tried is that any attempt to do so would be politically fatal for whoever proposed it. Voters believe that government is the source of free goodies. Too many believe they are entitled to be supported by government. Anyone proposing meaningful spending cuts would likely be subjected to political execution at the earliest election. Nothing is more valued to the political mind than attaining and retaining office. That is why the debt ceiling deal was such a fraud. Neither party pushed for meaningful spending cuts. Both postured for voters. Both wanted a new credit card and got the largest one ever issued. Political parasites rationally chose to continue the plunder and exploitation knowing that it ensured long-term death of the host. In classic Keynesian short-termism ("in the long-run we are all dead"), politicians chose to remain in the trough to continue feeding on the host. The decision to destroy the host may not seem rational to the rest of us, but it is clearly in the best interest of the current parasites. Death for them at some future uncertain date is a better than death at the next election. They chose what was in their best interest but not the country's. Until the host dies, the current parasites will exploit for as long as they can. They have chosen a form of Kevorkian economics, managed suicide for the host economy. Unlike Kevorkian, they intend to keep the host alive as long as possible enabling them to maximize their time in the trough. The rest of us will be left to pick up the pieces when the collapse occurs. The parasites will be dead in a political sense but likely living in a different country. Government is the problem, everywhere. Monty Pelerin blogs at at www.economicnoise.com. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/08/political_parisitology.html
An article by James G. Wiles makes the military connection to the decline and fall of civilizations. As interesting as it is a priest can make an equally compelling argument for moral decay. Mr. Wiles gives special notice to the Roman Empire: For English-speaking peoples, the original case study, of course, is Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire published from 1776 to 1787. Rome was the longest-lasting of the Ancient World's universal empires. Some of the others were Persia, the Macedonia of Alexander the Great and China. Gibbon's thesis is well known (and often misunderstood). But the theme of Gibbon's masterpiece might best be summarized as how-Rome-lost-its-martial-spirit. It is not that Rome fell —— it is that it fell so rapidly. Approximately 30 years. With that time frame in mind a very good case was made for lead poisoning being the cause. You can find a bunch of stuff at this link if you’re interested: http://search.aol.com/aol/search?query=Lead+poisoning+&+the+Roman+Empire&s_it=keyword_rollover If I remember correctly, the main cause of lead poisoning was attributed to wealthy Romans placing wine in lead vessels, then placing the vessels in hot water in order to warm the wine. The impoverished could not afford lead jugs, and probably not the fuel to heat the water. The lead poisoning explanation was supported by examining the skeletal remains of those Romans who died before, during, and after the 30 year time period in question. The graves of those Romans who were solvent on the day they checked out yielded an extraordinarily high number of skeletons whose original owners had died from lead poisoning during the period of rapid decline ending in the fall. The bones exhumed from the graves of those Romans who were less than fortunate in life did not show any signs of lead poisoning. Conclusion: Those Romans who managed the empire died off too quickly for the materially disadvantaged to acquire the needed skills fast enough to hold a complex, far-reaching, empire together; hence, the Fall of the Roman Empire took place in only 30 years. Parenthetically, not too long ago socialist do-gooders, flying the environmental battle flag, declared war on chocolate. In their drive for total control they decided to save the children one more time by claiming that chocolate can cause lead poisoning. If that were true I, and everyone I know, would be long dead. Throughout most of my life I devoured chocolate like an aardvark lunching on ants, or maybe I'm just immune to lead poisoning. Also, the folks living in the Western democracies have been eating chocolate for a long time and their civilization has not declined —— at least not from chocolate. Let's stretch it a bit and say that the chocolate fruitcakes may be onto something here. If so, when can we expect chocolate consumption to bring the American civilization to its knees? Finally, I don’t doubt any of the reasons offered for the decline of civilizations. I’m sure every one played a part. I happen to believe that the parasite class is the root cause in every case; more so when an uncommon factor like lead poisoning is eliminated from consideration. Here’s the article in two parts for those who find the topic as fascinating as do I: August 21, 2011 Martial Virtues and the Survival of Civilizations By James G. Wiles It's the Silly Season. Yet, in the midst of America's earliest presidential campaign ever, the sultry air is filled with talk of Western societal decline. And our TV screens and the Internet are filled with the reality of it. The British riots have sparked the question: what happened to Great Britain? It is a fact of history that the English (and the Scots) used to be -- like the Germans, the Arabs and the Japanese -- one of the most pugnacious people in the world. Now, as Frank Miniter wrote in a piece this week entitled "England Used to Be a Country of Men," Brits meekly hand over the clothes on their backs (and backsides) to rioters who request them. The same humiliation happened, at an earlier time, to the French and the Spanish. Europeans once spoke of the "Spanish fury," and the "French fury." There was even "Gaelic fury." No more. What happened? Where did the martial spirit which created, first, the Spanish Empire (the original "empire on which the sun never sets") and, later, when Spain had begun its centuries-long decline, the British Empire go? It can't all have been channeled into football hooliganism. More importantly: where did it come from? For English-speaking peoples, the original case study, of course, is Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire published from 1776 to 1787. Rome was the longest-lasting of the Ancient World's universal empires. Some of the others were Persia, the Macedonia of Alexander the Great and China. Gibbon's thesis is well known (and often misunderstood). But the theme of Gibbon's masterpiece might best be summarized as how-Rome-lost-its-martial-spirit. The first Roman Emperor to die in battle with a foreign enemy was Decius, in 251 A.D. The next was Valerian in 259, captured and killed by the Persians at the Battle of Edessa in what's now Iraq. By the time the Visigoths got around to sacking Rome for the first time in 410, the legions (and their commanders) were themselves mostly comprised of Germans. Fighting, it seems, had become a type of job which Romans would not do. Plainly, in today's world, all the Western powers except America (and, perhaps, Canada) have lost their martial spirit. Are we losing ours? What prompts these thoughts is the recent exchange I had on AT's comment page with a reader named Pieter Nosworthy. I had written about the modern relevance of Rudyard Kipling's poetry to our war in Afghanistan and, in particular, to the loss of 31 American soldiers in Afghanistan in the shoot-down of a Chinook helicopter. Since then, it's been gratifying to see other commentators focusing on Kipling's poetry as well, especially his "Gods of the Copybook Headings." The money quote was this stanza: And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins, When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! I didn't reference this poem in my AT piece; but I cited several others as being apposite to America's predicament in the War with Jihad. Pieter Nosworthy (who, by way of introduction, said he'd been "in and out of theatre for 10 years"), responded by saying this: "[T]he only comment worth relating is that war leaves dead and broken men in the wake of its prosecution. As for "Chinook Down," your playful use of words doesn't begin to encompass the nature of an air frame that has a pax of capacity of "one more." When things go bad the consequences are always dire. The American people chose this war as a matter of policy. Did they not think that some of us wouldn't die? Regardless of whether this is good policy or not, we are engaged with the enemy and bad days are part of the profession." (emphasis added). The translation of that, I thought when I read it, is: suck it up, civilian! It's Kipling's message too. Also of George Orwell's quote about "rough men" who protect our sleep. Not to mention the famous cross-examination of Jack Nicholson's character in the movie, A Few Good Men. I think Pieter Nosworthy's right. And the text to prove it, unsurprisingly, is another Rudyard Kipling poem, "If." Also Robert D. Kaplan's Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Requires a Pagan Ethos. So, the question before us is one which historians since Ibn Khaldun have pondered. The inquiry for Americans -- focused on our deficit debate through the prism of next year's election -- is whether America's welfare state is causing America's decline in the world. Of our historical predecessors, only Great Britain presents the example of an imperial power brought low, in significant part, by the cost of an expansive social safety net. Thus: is it the chicken or the egg? Over at Canada's National Post, Fr. Raymond de Souza reviews Mark Steyn's important new book, After America. De Souza asks the correct question. Did the expanding state wither the individual, or did the withering of the individual lead to an expansion of the state?
PART TWO: In America, the historical answer is clear enough. Here, expansion in business regulation tends to occur after major business scandals -- to correct perceived abuses. Expansions in the social welfare state tend to occur during an economic collapse or immediately after wars. Big wars usually mean big prosperity, which makes the welfare state more affordable. The first great expansion in the size and scope of the federal government came during the Civil War. The second occurred in the Progressive Era under Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal and the New Freedom of Woodrow Wilson (who also led America through the First World War). The Great Depression and FDR's New Deal were followed by the Second World War. The second half of the 20th century saw the same pattern. Harry Truman's Fair Deal, with its attempt to start civil rights reform and enact a form of national health care, was overshadowed by the Korean War and the beginning of the Cold War. LBJ's Great Society and the great expansion of federal regulation under both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon coincided with the Vietnam War. So far, the 21st century is proving no different. President George Bush's No Child Left Behind program and prescription drug benefit followed on 9/11 and the consequent War with Jihad. Enron and World Com begot Sarbanes-Oxley. The Great Recession begot Dodd-Frank. And -- fulfilling a pledge first made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his 1944 State of the Union Address, in 2010 we got ObamaCare. Meanwhile the War with Jihad has become the Long War. As Pieter Nosworthy reminds us, the Long War is far from over. So, we are currently experiencing both economic crisis and war. And the anti-American Left, in the person of President Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats, have taken full advantage of it. Yet, the Long War has been too small to stimulate the economy. As I've said here, "the next election can't come soon enough for our children's future." In the meantime, America faces the sobering rise of modern China. Mark Steyn has much to say about that in his new book. One comforting thing which Steyn predicts, based on the demographic evidence, is that -- principally because of the success of the PRC's One-Child Policy -- China "will get old before it gets rich." But it's also true that, with the return of the Chinese and the Persians (and, to a lesser extent, the Arabs and the Jews) to the global stage, the world's most modern nation is being challenged by the return to history of some of the ancient world's most prominent peoples. A reckoning of sorts may be at hand. Interestingly, "waterfront philosopher" Eric Hoffer was prescient in predicting China's return. In his 1977 book, In Our Time, Hoffer was writing in the aftermath of the PRC's disastrous Cultural Revolution (and Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's opening of Beijing to the West). Yet, from our perspective in 2011, the old longshoreman saw the future with stark clarity. "China," Hoffer wrote, "was to the Far East what Greece and Rome combined were to the West. Like Greece in the West, China was the source of cultural life in its Far Easter sphere -- in Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Mongolia -- and like Rome it served as a model for civilian and military administration. Thus the rebirth of China cannot be viewed merely as an instance of something that is going on at present in the underdeveloped parts of the world. It is more as though Greece and Rome had come back to life, ready to dominate again the Mediterranean basin and Europe beyond the Alps." (emphasis added). No poetry there. But food for thought in a bleak time. http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...irtues_and_the_survival_of_civilizations.html
When the character of a culture and its people change it doesn't matter how great the accomplishments of past generations have been. Great success seems to breed great complacency. Complacency itself breeds the development of inferior character. This was apparent in the Rome of the Emperor Commodus and the USA of the President Obama. Once it begins there seems to be no chance to reverse it. Even the appearance of heroes who temporarily stop the slide does not alter the ultimate trajectory of collapse. The Emperor Aurelian was able to stop the Roman slide about 275 CE, but only for a time. If America wanted to save itself it would be necessary for its current citizenry to sacrifice themselves for their children. How likely is that to happen?
