Tag: History

Thucydides First Draft

Alright, buckle the f* up, because I’m Thucydides, an Athenian, and I decided to write down the complete and total fing sshow that was the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians. Why? Because the moment these dumbasses threw the first punch, I was dead certain this was gonna be the biggest fing war anyone had ever seen. And I wasn’t talking out of my ass—both sides were ready to go medieval on each other’s asses, gearing up like they were about to rip the world a new one. Every sword, every ship, every bloodthirsty bastard was locked, loaded, and ready to f s* up. And the rest of the Greek world? They were just sitting on the sidelines, cracking their knuckles, waiting to get in on the action.

But this wasn’t just a local brawl, no sir. This was an all-out fing global beatdown, pulling in every barbarian and power-hungry prick from here to the goddamn edge of the map. The biggest, dumbest, most epic clusterf in the history of mankind up to that point. And yeah, sure, the old history books are a little sketchy, but you can bet your ass there was nothing before this war that even came close to this kind of scale. Not in war, not in anything.

Now here’s the kicker—looking back, all I can say is: what the actual f? The sheer stupidity of this s blows my mind. We charged into this like we were writing some epic tale, but what we really did was set the stage for the most batshit insane, violent, soul-crushing failure of humanity you could ever dream up. We strutted into the abyss, thinking we were gods, only to get our asses handed to us on a flaming f***ing platter.

“The greatest fing movement in history”? Get the f out of here. This was a goddamn parade of dumbasses throwing themselves into the meat grinder, waving their swords around like it was going to end any other way. And for what? To blow s*** up, burn each other’s cities to the ground, and call it glory? Yeah, they went medieval on each other’s asses, alright—except no one came out on top. Just a bunch of motherfers making the same stupid mistakes over and over, while the world watched us self-destruct like it was the greatest fing show on earth.

The Grand Design

Leave a comment

A shadow play, this whole goddamn American hustle. Big men in their smoke-filled rooms, puppeteers with blood-diamond rings, jerking the strings of a nation built on the backs of the tired and yearning. They spin dreams of El Dorados across the briny expanse, luring the huddled masses with snake-oil promises and the glint of illusory opportunity.

These hopefuls, calloused hands clutching dreams like worn passports, arrive with eyes wide and pockets empty. They’re fed into the meat grinder of industry, their labor a lubricant for the gears that churn out profit for the unseen masters. But just as the discontent starts to simmer, a dark magic trick is performed. The puppeteers, with a smirk as practiced as a vaudeville routine, unleash the spectres of xenophobia – the “Other” as a convenient scapegoat.

Suddenly, the anger boils over, but not towards the unseen hands that orchestrated the whole damn ballet. No, the fury is directed at the very victims of the scheme, the immigrants painted as job stealers and culture vultures. A beautiful misdirection, a shell game worthy of a three-card monte champion.

Meanwhile, down in the labyrinthine corridors of power, laws are drafted and passed with the efficiency of a pickpocket. Laws that tighten the elite’s grip, disguised in legalese so dense it could choke a condor. The masses, distracted by the flickering phantoms of immigration and the cacophony of hate-mongering, barely bat an eyelash.

The supposed champions of the downtrodden, the bleeding hearts with their anthems of equality, are blind to the grand design. Pawns in another game, chasing after a symbolic carrot while the real feast is devoured by the ones in the shadows. The right, frothing at the mouth about some mythical erosion of their “whiteness,” become unwitting attack dogs for the very system that exploits them.

And so the cycle perpetuates, a self-sustaining machine of manipulation and deflection. The puppeteers, masters of the grand illusion, keep the strings taut, ensuring the real power dynamic remains shrouded in a fog of manufactured outrage. The American tapestry, woven with threads of contradiction and continuity, unfurls like a never-ending carnival sideshow, a mesmerizing spectacle that obscures the gears and levers that truly make it tick.

Bismarck

Leave a comment

Otto von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor, was a man marinated in vice. Wine, a crimson serpent, coiled around his mornings, slithered through lunch, and tightened its grip at dinner. Beer, a frothy trollop yeasty serpent, slithered down his gullet between courses, leaving a trail of burps that could curdle milk. And cigarettes, glowing embers of damnation, were his constant companions, wisping their tendrils of addiction into his lungs. Tobacco, a fiery succubus, latched onto his lips, whispering sweet oblivion in puffs of acrid smoke.

And when the sun dipped below the horizon, Bismarck wouldn’t be caught dead (well, not yet) with a mug of chamomile tea. Sleep? A mere drunken stupor, a surrender to the green fumes of absinthe that clouded his dreams. No, sleep arrived on a flood tide of schnapps, a potent oblivion that painted the world a blurry shade of Prussian ambition.

At the Berlin Conference, where they carved Africa like a rotten melon, Bismarck wasn’t just a player, he was a force of nature fueled by fermented grapes and barley. Pickled herrings, those translucent messengers of the deep, found their way into his maw with a two-handed frenzy. Bismarck wasn’t a statesman, he was a fiend at a banquet. Pickled herrings, those translucent messengers of decay, found their way into his maw with a speed that defied cutlery. Two hands, like meat hooks, wrestled the oily fish, a grotesque ballet fueled by schnapps and avarice. The room reeked of power, sweat, and pickled fish, a fitting olfactory accompaniment to the dismemberment of a continent.

Was he drunk? Who the hell cared. Drunk or sober, Bismarck was a shark in a feeding frenzy, and Africa, dripping and glistening, was the blood in the water. One imagines the negotiations, a grand guignol of ink-stained maps and diplomatic double-entendres, punctuated by the belch of a man pickled himself, both literally and figuratively. The ink on the treaties might as well have been blood, Bismarck’s own fiery spirit staining the parchment. A whirlwind of diplomacy and debauchery, the Iron Chancellor left a trail of fumes and fumes alone in his wake.

One could argue Bismarck’s boozy brilliance was a double-edged sword, a Molotov cocktail of realpolitik served lukewarm. Sure, he unified Germany under a Prussian fist, but was it a foundation built on sand, mortared with hangover sweat?

It was the first domino in Germany’s tragic waltzing with oblivion. Imagine the map of Africa being carved up not by a steely-eyed statesman, but by a bleary-eyed baron with a tremor in his hand. Did the borders of the Congo sprawl outwards because Bismarck saw double after a particularly potent schnapps?

Perhaps. And perhaps those shaky lines, drawn in a haze of hops and hangover, laid the groundwork for future conflicts. Resources, resentment, a festering sense of injustice – a potent cocktail, even without the booze.

Then consider the domino effect. Bismarck’s legacy, built on unsteady legs, crumbles. The power vacuum sucks in a new breed of leader, hungry and paranoid. Enter Hitler, a teetotaler fueled by a different kind of intoxication – a twisted ideology that had him high as a🪁 (kite) on delusions of grandeur.

So yes, there’s a delicious irony, wouldn’t you say? Bismarck, the boozer, might have unwittingly paved the way for a dry drunk who’d plunge the world into a firestorm. The Iron Chancellor, brought low not by iron, but by cirrhosis. A cautionary tale, indeed, for leaders who confuse a full flagon with a full head.

Perhaps, if Bismarck had swapped the schnapps for seltzer, things might have been different. But that’s just another line in the mad scribble of history, a “what if” lost in the haze of his perpetual inebriation.One could argue Bismarck’s boozy statecraft was a recipe for Deutschland’s descent into the inferno. Imagine, the fate of entire nations decided by a man reeking of stale beer and pickled brine! His proclamations, no doubt, slurred pronouncements delivered through a haze of nicotine and schnapps.

It’s a heady cocktail of speculation, for sure. But with Bismarck swigging wine at breakfast and Hitler frothing at the podium, one can’t help but wonder if Germany just couldn’t find the right balance. Perhaps the answer wasn’t rock bottom or uptight abstinence, but a healthy dose of moderation. A nation, like a man, needs a clear head to navigate the treacherous waters of history.

Enter Byzantium

We’re entering the Byzantium era of the American empire

We’re entering the Byzantine era of the American empire

1945-1991 Republic

– Superpower with a conscience.

– Cold War theatrics.

– Pretend rules mattered.

1991-2024: Empire

– Global sheriff, no oversight.

– Power trip, overreach.

– Cracks show, ignored them.

2024- : Hellenistic/Byzantium Era

– Shift to inward focus

– Autopilot .

– Culture war carnival.

– Holding on, fading fast.

In this context:

  • 1945-1991 (Republic): This period saw the U.S. emerge as a superpower post-World War II, characterized by the Cold War’s ideological battle between capitalism and communism. Despite global influence, there was still a sense of the U.S. operating within a set of rules, even as it expanded its reach.
  • 1991-2024 (Empire): After the Soviet Union’s collapse, the U.S. assumed a more dominant role in global affairs, often acting unilaterally. This period might be seen as the apex of American power, with economic, military, and cultural influence spreading globally. However, this era also saw the seeds of decline, with internal divisions, overextension, and challenges to U.S. hegemony growing.
  • 2024- (Hellenistic/Byzantium Era): You’re suggesting that the U.S. is entering a phase similar to the Byzantine era, where the empire becomes more inward-looking, perhaps less cohesive, with power fragmented and cultural shifts occurring. The focus may move from global dominance to maintaining stability and identity amidst internal and external challenges.

This analogy highlights the cyclical nature of empires and how they evolve, suggesting that the U.S. might be on the brink of significant transformation, facing both decline and the possibility of renewal in a different form. It might be characterized by a blend of old and new, with an emphasis on preserving certain traditions while adapting to new realities.

The Byzantium of the American Empire: A Study in Inevitable Decline

As we shuffle into the next phase of the American experiment, it’s hard not to see the parallels with an empire that once ruled from the shores of the Mediterranean. The United States, once the shining beacon of the free world, is now settling into its Hellenistic-Byzantium era—an age where the pomp and circumstance of past glories mask the slow, inevitable decline.

The Hellenistic Hangover

The Hellenistic period, following Alexander the Great’s conquests, was marked by a blend of cultural diffusion, scientific advances, and, crucially, the splintering of his once-unified empire into warring factions. Sound familiar? Just as the Greek world couldn’t sustain its unity post-Alexander, America’s post-Cold War unipolar moment was destined to fracture. The signs have been there for decades, hidden beneath the veneer of prosperity and power. The neoliberal order, much like Hellenistic culture, spread its tentacles far and wide—globalizing trade, finance, and, ironically, discontent.

In this phase, America acts as if its supremacy is still unquestioned, yet the world has moved on. New centers of power are emerging, and the once-dominant narratives are now met with skepticism, if not outright hostility. The Pax Americana is fraying, and much like the Hellenistic kingdoms, the U.S. is increasingly bogged down by internal contradictions and external challenges. Our technology is advanced, our culture is pervasive, but the unity and purpose that once underpinned our global leadership are rapidly eroding. We are a nation fighting over scraps of a bygone era, unwilling to face the reality that the world no longer revolves around Washington, D.C.

The Byzantine Bureaucracy

Welcome to the Byzantine phase, where complexity becomes a substitute for strength, and bureaucratic inertia replaces decisive action. The Byzantine Empire, after all, was a marvel of administrative overreach—a labyrinthine state that survived not through innovation or conquest but through the sheer force of tradition and the stubbornness of a system too complicated to fail quickly. The Byzantines, much like modern America, were masters of holding on. They fortified their cities, codified their laws, and squabbled over religious doctrine while their enemies grew stronger at the gates.

Today’s America is a nation of endless procedures, regulations, and bureaucracies, all designed to keep the wheels turning just a little longer. The government is a sprawling beast, devouring resources to sustain its own existence. Agencies multiply, their purposes often overlapping, creating a system where accountability is diffused to the point of non-existence. We have federal programs no one can explain, military engagements no one can justify, and social policies that have long outlived their usefulness. And yet, we persist—not out of strength, but out of an inability to conceive of a different way.

This Byzantine attitude pervades not just government but society as a whole. We are a culture obsessed with preserving the status quo, even as it becomes increasingly clear that the old models no longer work. Our education system churns out graduates equipped for jobs that no longer exist; our healthcare system is a Gordian knot of inefficiency; our political system is a theatre of the absurd, where nothing of consequence gets done, but the spectacle never ends. It’s all reminiscent of the Byzantine court, where ceremonial matters often took precedence over existential threats.

Cultural Fragmentation and Decay

The Byzantine Empire wasn’t just a political entity; it was a cultural phenomenon that, for centuries, clung to a fading idea of what it once was. As Rome’s successor, it inherited a legacy of greatness but struggled to live up to it. In much the same way, America is caught in the throes of cultural fragmentation, holding onto the ghost of a unified identity even as it tears itself apart from within. The so-called “culture wars” are nothing more than a public squabble over who gets to define what America stands for in this new, uncertain age.

Yet, as we bicker over which version of history is correct, or which ideology should dominate the airwaves, the world outside our borders moves on. Our cultural exports, once the envy of the world, are increasingly seen as outdated, out of touch, or outright harmful. Hollywood, once the global dream factory, is now a parody of itself, churning out reboots and sequels to stave off the creative bankruptcy that everyone knows is coming. Our music, our fashion, our very way of life—all are being scrutinized and found wanting by a global audience that is no longer as easily impressed as it once was.

Internally, the decay is even more pronounced. Our public discourse is poisoned, our social fabric torn. Communities that once thrived on shared values and mutual support now crumble under the weight of inequality, alienation, and mistrust. The Byzantine Empire had its share of internal strife—religious schisms, palace coups, and social unrest—but even these seem almost quaint compared to the chaos of modern America. We are a nation divided not just by politics, but by reality itself, with no common ground in sight.

Holding On, Fading Fast

So here we are, clinging to the remnants of a bygone era, much like the Byzantines who once proudly called themselves Romans, even as their empire shrank to a fraction of its former glory. The American Empire, for all its achievements, is now more concerned with survival than with leadership. We are an empire on autopilot, hoping that inertia will carry us through the storm. But history is not kind to those who rest on their laurels.

The Byzantine Empire survived for centuries after the fall of Rome, not because it was strong, but because it was too stubborn to die. It endured through a combination of luck, diplomacy, and a refusal to acknowledge its own decline. In the end, though, even Byzantium fell—its once-great cities sacked, its culture assimilated or destroyed, its legacy reduced to a footnote in history.

As America enters its own Byzantine era, we should take heed. Survival is not the same as thriving. Holding on is not the same as leading. We can continue to live in the shadow of our former greatness, or we can face the harsh realities of the present and choose a new path. But if we choose to remain in this state of denial, we risk becoming little more than a historical curiosity—an empire that faded into irrelevance while the world moved on.

Failing in Slow Motion: The Byzantine Collapse as America’s Future

When people think of collapse, they often imagine a sudden, catastrophic event—a single, definitive moment when everything falls apart. But the Byzantine Empire, which clung to life for a thousand years after the fall of Rome, teaches us a different lesson: you can fail for far longer than you can succeed. The Byzantine collapse was less an explosion and more a slow, agonizing decline, a process that took centuries, marked by moments of brief recovery but ultimately defined by a gradual erosion of power, influence, and relevance.

If there’s a lesson to be learned from Byzantium, it’s that decline isn’t always dramatic. It’s often mundane, a slow drip of compromises, missteps, and missed opportunities that accumulate over time until you’re left with something that’s still recognizable as an empire, but only in name. As America enters its own Byzantine phase, it’s worth considering the possibility that our decline won’t be a spectacular fall, but rather a long, drawn-out failure—one that lasts far longer than our brief moments of triumph.

The Illusion of Continuity

One of the most remarkable things about the Byzantine Empire is how long it managed to persist, despite everything. Even as its territory shrank, its economy faltered, and its military power waned, the Byzantines clung to the trappings of empire. They still called themselves Romans, still performed the same ceremonies, still believed, on some level, that they were the heirs to a great legacy. But this continuity was largely an illusion. The Byzantines may have kept the lights on, but the fire had long since gone out.

In much the same way, America today maintains the outward appearance of a global superpower, even as the foundations of that power erode. We still have the largest economy, the most powerful military, and a culture that influences the world, but these are all remnants of a past that is slipping away. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our politics are paralyzed, and our social fabric is fraying. We keep going through the motions, but the energy that once drove our success is fading.

Failing as a Way of Life

The Byzantine Empire didn’t collapse because of one fatal blow. It failed slowly, over centuries, because it couldn’t adapt to the changing world around it. Its bureaucracy became bloated and inefficient; its military became more concerned with palace intrigue than defending the empire; its leaders became more focused on preserving their own power than on solving the problems facing their people. Failure became a way of life—a slow, grinding process that continued until there was nothing left to save.

America today seems to be on a similar path. Our political system is bogged down by partisanship and gridlock, more interested in winning the next election than in governing effectively. Our economy, while still large, is increasingly unequal, with the benefits of growth concentrated in the hands of a few while the middle class shrinks. Our society is divided, not just by politics, but by race, class, and geography. We are failing slowly, but failing nonetheless.

The Long Decline

The Byzantines managed to survive for a thousand years, not because they were strong, but because they were stubborn. They adapted just enough to keep going, but never enough to thrive. They made deals with their enemies, compromised their values, and held onto power by any means necessary. In the end, they didn’t so much collapse as fade away, a shadow of their former selves.

If America follows the Byzantine path, our decline will be long and drawn out. We will continue to exist, to go through the motions of being a superpower, but our influence will wane, our economy will stagnate, and our society will become more fractured. We will hold on, not out of strength, but out of inertia. And just like Byzantium, we may find that failing can last far longer than succeeding ever did.

All Writing Is Re-writing

Leave a comment

The idea that all writing is rewriting is a popular adage in the world of literature, and it certainly holds true for historians. As they piece together the events of the past and create narratives that make sense of it all, historians are in effect re-writing the past in a way that helps us better understand the present. But what does this really mean, and how does it impact our understanding of history?

First, let’s consider what it means to rewrite something. In the context of writing, rewriting is the process of revising and editing a draft until it is polished and ready for publication. This involves making changes, adding or removing material, and generally improving the overall quality of the work. When historians write about the past, they are essentially doing the same thing. They are taking raw data in the form of primary sources like documents, artifacts, and testimonies, and crafting a story that we can understand.

But why do historians need to rewrite the past in the first place? One reason is that the raw data of history can be incomplete or inconsistent. For example, different sources might offer different perspectives on the same event, and historians must weigh these perspectives against each other to create a coherent narrative. Additionally, some sources might be biased or unreliable, requiring historians to sift through the evidence to determine what is fact and what is fiction. Through the process of rewriting, historians can create a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the past.

Historians have the task of reconstructing the past and interpreting it in a way that makes sense in the present. However, this process is not as straightforward as it may seem. The past is not a fixed and objective reality but rather a complex and multidimensional field of virtualities, potentials, and possibilities. In other words, the past is a Deleuzian multiplicity that can be re-written from various perspectives, depending on the conceptual tools and discursive strategies that the historian employs.

From a Deleuzian perspective, the past is not a linear sequence of events but a rhizomatic network of connections and becomings. The Deleuzian rhizome is a non-hierarchical and non-linear mode of thinking that emphasizes the creative potential of difference and multiplicity. It is a way of thinking that challenges the traditional binary oppositions and dualities that have dominated Western thought for centuries, such as subject/object, mind/body, nature/culture, and so on.

All historians re-write the past from a Deleuzian perspective, they adopt a rhizomatic mode of thinking that emphasizes the diversity of perspectives, the complexity of interactions, and the contingency of events. By imposing a course in events, they recognize that there is no single objective truth or interpretation of the past but rather a plurality of subjective and situated perspectives that are shaped by historical, cultural, and ideological factors.

Some have argued that historical events and processes are not determined by fixed and universal laws but rather by contingent and context-specific logics. We identify four logics of historical explanation: eventful, conjunctural, structural, and cultural. Each logic highlights a different aspect of the past and requires a different conceptual framework and methodology.

For instance, the eventful logic focuses on the contingency of individual actions and the unpredictability of outcomes. The conjunctural logic emphasizes the interdependence of various factors and the emergence of new configurations. The structural logic highlights the patterns of power and inequality that shape social relations. The cultural logic emphasizes the meanings, symbols, and values that inform human behavior.

Moreover, historians are not simply passive observers of the past, but active participants in shaping our understanding of it. They make choices about what stories to tell and how to tell them, and these choices have real-world consequences. For example, a historian who writes a biography of a famous historical figure might influence how that figure is remembered and celebrated in popular culture. This can shape our understanding of the past and our cultural identity in the present.

In conclusion, the idea that all writing is rewriting holds true for historians as well. Through the process of re-writing the past, historians create a narrative that helps us make sense of the world we live in today. While this process is necessarily subjective and influenced by the needs of the present, it plays a critical role in helping us understand our own history and identity.