Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 27, 2007
Moving the Empire?

by Debs is dead
lifted from a comment

As the shape and efforts of the amerikan empire and it’s army come
to resemble that of the Roman Empire each day; one wonders where they
will move to now that the continental US is becoming less salubrious,
less inviting for them.

A very good argument can be put up to support the contention that
this empire has moved once already – from england when the ‘messiness’
of WW2 caused the imperialists to lose control of england’s body
politic. We may consider the likes of Harold Wilson‘s
blood to be a very pale red indeed but there is no doubt it was
sufficiently magenta to prevent england from being the administrative
and oppression HQ for the world’s largest empire. Which is when
responsibility for that empire was quietly handballed across to
amerika. . .

As some may know Rome’s burgeoning population, which caused people
of non Roman pedigree to be in positions of control, combined with the
far flung subject peoples’ opprobium towards Rome, Italy – persuaded
that empire’s leaders (emperor, generals, and finances – but not the
tax collectors, never the tax collectors) to be moved from Rome to
Constantinople or as it was christened at the time, Nova Roma ("New
Rome"), today known as Istanbul.

Eventually those ‘back home’ in increasingly impoverished and
frequently ‘sacked’ Rome Italy, separated from the Roman Empire, and
moved HQ to Milan, although there were occasional re-unifications. The
‘Western Roman Empire" existed in name only for much of the time it
existed and didn’t exist at all for most of the time. Constantinople
was where the action was for any up and coming mainchancer.

It was the Eastern empire, renamed Byzantium by 19th century
historians which maintained an unbroken succession of emperors dating
back to Augustus Caesar (Julie didn’t quite qualify as an emperor –
copped the knife in the back before he could). The people of Byzantium
called themselves ‘roman’ and retained the customs of Rome. Needless to
say Byzantium was also where the money was.

So as amerikans become poorer and less somnolent, as those who have
had their families destroyed by the empire’s excesses seek to visit a
little vengeance upon the population they believe responsible, the
notion of shifting off to a home away from home will become attractive.

The new capital will be somewhat smaller and easier to ‘sanitise’,
to keep the non-elites at arm’s length, like Constantinople it will
probably be closer to the action, so as to make it appear
‘strategically better’ and an advance toward the action rather than a
retreat away from the hoi polloi.

There is a terrible synergy about Jerusalem. If we (the humans)
fail, and the amerikan empire is still extant, will it be headquartered
in Israel by 2050?

Comments

It’s already moving to the Emirates, Bahrein, Abu Dhabi, the ports, citibank, haliburton, it’s happening as we speak.

Posted by: Lupin | Nov 27 2007 12:34 utc | 1

I don’t think such a movement will happen but find it interesting that such moves did happen during history. For moving from Rome one factor was also environmental.
If such a move of money and power is considered there are certain conditions the place would have to meet.
– Natural resources to sustain it
– Friendly white rulers who speak english
– Protected by natural barriers (water)
– Good communication infrastructure for financial business
Hmmm – Jerusalem is too unruly and in easy reach of enemies
Dubai – no drinkable water, dangerous neighborhood, easy to attack
Australia looks fine, New Zealand too, as does Canada.

Posted by: b | Nov 27 2007 13:23 utc | 2

oh no, not Canukistan!

Posted by: jcairo | Nov 27 2007 13:27 utc | 3

Interesting Debs is Dead. Thanks.
As global warming ramps up, I think migration will tend towards the north. But what do I know? Sorry, jcairo.
Let it snow.

Posted by: beq | Nov 27 2007 13:39 utc | 4

Payload: Taking Aim at Corporate Bribery BAE

LATE last month, five jumbo jets from Riyadh touched down at Heathrow Airport in London. They brought with them 13 members of the Saudi royal family, including King Abdullah and his retainers — and controversy. Over the last four years, the British government has been dogged by criticism of its relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is Britain’s biggest trading partner in the Middle East.

Much more at the link…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 27 2007 14:05 utc | 5

I’ve been saying for years that Canada will be the seat of empire. Global warming makes it that much better.

Posted by: R.L. | Nov 27 2007 15:17 utc | 6

we get nowhere near the snow I remember from my yout.
Winter 05-06 began aboot the second week of Jan ’06. Bitter cold and some snow. It seemed a trend for a few years, but this year is more like it – still without a lot of snow. We might get a few dumps yet of 20cm, give or take.
They can move up if they like.
What will they drink?
Apparently, 4 trillion litres of water is taken from the Great Lakes every single day. The lakes are very, very, very low.
If stacked, these litres would extend from the Sun to out past Jupiter.
I’d like to think that Canucks aren’t as easily fooled as much of the US populace (or any, for that matter) seems to be.
I’d be wrong. 😉

Posted by: jcairo | Nov 27 2007 16:31 utc | 7

So the US will have killed of the natives and sucked out the energy of that great continent and f*** up any kind or reasonable organization and the elites will decamp to Israel or Patagonia or Bhutan (to mention just one ‘weird’ place) – rich oligarchs, semi global monarchs, with huge private armies at their disposition – plus all the hapless poor, like US rednecks, Mexican poor, Colombian wretches, and endless Muslim warriors, oh yes…
..Either well before 2050 or not at all.
Not at all is my guess. (Except for isolated individuals making their way.)

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 27 2007 19:55 utc | 8

The great lakes have 20% of the world’s drinking usable water. So, does it mean that only a portion of North America is enough to dry up that much water? That’s pretty impressive – in a “damn greedy fools” way.
There were several reasons to move away from Rome. Keep in mind Rome had been a multi-cultural metropolis for several centuries, since even before the Empire. 200 years before Constantine, Juvenalis was already complaining about dirty Easterners flooding the city with their foreign tongues and habits. Yet Rome managed to survive and the Empire lived on its most prosperous decades after that. I’d say that the relative wealth of the East, compared to the quite poor West – as it has always been during the ancient times even under the Republic or before – was a key reason; power wanted to be closer to the key resources and riches to keep a better eye on them. There’s also the fact that Constantine was a wannabe Christian fundie, and the Eastern empire was far more christianised than the West, where a few cities and mostly a few Italian areas were Christian, but the rest was honest-to-gods pagan, as it had been for millennia.
As for Byzantium, it thought to be the continuation of Roman Empire for a couple of centuris, but soon Justinian’s delirium went to shit with various invasions, notably the Muslim tide which swept away a massive chunk of the empire for good. For most of its history, the “Roman” empire was just posturing of a Greek empire covering the Eastern Mediterranean world. They surely couldn’t do jack in the Western third/half of the area after 700, which allowed for the rise of the Franks, then France, England and Holy German Empire. So, the move worked not too awfully for 2-300 years, then the net result was a divided Europe/Mediterranean world between major regional powers, the Western ones eventually combining with the Eastern Turkish invaders to downsize the “Roman empire”. No one can seriously assume Byzantium was the master of the universe in 750AD, not even to mention its situation after the 4th Crusade.
Concerning a move of the current “empire”, frankly, I would wonder where it would go. It would have to be a pretty sizable piece of estate, and despite TPTB dislike of the masses, it should have a sizable population, with a decent military, for quite obvious reasons. I mean, they’re not totally fools and wouldn’t go to settle in NZ and have to rely on mercenaries coming from the other side of the world, when the Chinese, or disgruntled Americans, would come after their riches to dispute power. Right now, apart from a return to Europe or a move East (somewhere between India and Japan), I don’t really see what would work. Canada is still too thinly populated and is quite an extension of the US in many regards. Or it could just be too slow to react, make a stand, and fall, like the Roman empire(s) eventually did.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Nov 27 2007 19:57 utc | 9

🙂
small gif: (empire song by b. riley) for barflies
link (one page only)
or here
link (one page only)

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 27 2007 20:10 utc | 10

This is all speculation of course but moving to Canada holds little advantage while retaining most of the disadvantage of the current location. The same migratory sweep from the South which will transform amerika and make it’s total control a distant memory will eventually reach Canada – that bit quicker if the perceived ‘wealth’ has moved there too.
Global warming will matter for us but not for those who rape the world. I have lived in very hot tropical cities and although life can be uncomfortable for the poor, for the rich who have sufficient energy to control the micro-climate around them it is very pleasant.
Most of my colleagues in Darwin lived in air conditioned houses given them by the ‘grateful’ taxpayer, electricity subsidised by the same source, commuted in air-conditioned cars allegedly owned by the taxpayer but that never stopped us (I did accept the car who can knock back a Shellcard which fills up such a thirsty vehicle), and they avoided the public they were meant to be serving by hiding out in huge air-conditioned office complexes.
And that was just us shit kickers believe me the natural temperature will feature very little in the considerations of the elite. Proximity to and control of remaining fossil fuel will be a primary consideration. It will be a key reason for abandoning ‘old’ amerika. The population is simply too large to keep in subsidised energy.
The ME is the most likely spot for a new amerikan empire and when one considers the judeo/xtian fundamentalist meme so popular amongst these low life greedheads, one can see how easily this could be adjusted to make the move to Jerusalem the ‘only way to avoid god’s wrath’.
Of course atomic energy will be used to meet much of the demand for raw continuous energy, lighting and air-conditioning, de-salination etc, but oil will still be needed for transportation and more especially as the base from which modern life’s insatiable demand for organic synthesis is met.
Global warming will have a terrible effect on natural organic synthesis as both the diversity and the raw number of natural life forms decline. Oil still contains the best complex organic molecules to begin artifical organic synthesis from. This terrible empire will want to sit as close to that as it safely can.
As for my spot. It’s biggest advantage, remoteness from everywhere else, will be it’s biggest disadvantage for the elites to rule from.
I’m sure we won’t be forgotten though, NZ could become the new Capri, the spot the rulers relax in away from prying eyes.
My descendants can look forward to being the contemporary equivalent of Emperor Tiberius’ spintriae desscribed as:

“In his retreat at Capri, he also contrived an apartment containing couches, and adapted to the secret practice of abominable lewdness, where he entertained companies of girls and catamites, and assembled from all quarters inventors of unnatural copulations, whom he called Spintriae, who defiled one another in his presence, to inflame by the exhibition the languid appetite.”

From Suetonius, ‘The Lives of the Twelve Caesars’ (Tiberius Nero Caesar, c. xliii)
None of us are fortune tellers but we can all read history and note the parallels caused by the limits to the range of human behaviour and emotion. So in reality pinpointing the exact spot that the empire will move it’s centre to is as inaccurate as it is frustrating, nevertheless amerikans should be in doubt that it will move somewhere, and judging by the acceleration of imperial entropy of late, sooner rather than later.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 27 2007 20:15 utc | 11

while I am up, Guy Delisle – PDFs but short.
Pyongyang:
link
Shenzen:
link

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 27 2007 20:26 utc | 12

Denver is rumored to be administrative center (not epicenter, though overuse of said term may be fore-telling, as are unbelievabale, incredible, awesome) of future North American Union. @ Uncle $cam, did respond to your very welcome e-mail, owl doll and big-eyed babes, asked for address to send my 29 printed postcards to (offer also open to others reading this) no response. Have worried 2 years my e-mails stopped (in-out), one reason I like blogs. Sorry not posting recently, home computer out.

Posted by: plushtown | Nov 27 2007 20:27 utc | 13

This is the dilemma of the US elites: they tried via the iraq war to relocate to china. they have lost.

Posted by: peter hofmann | Nov 27 2007 20:52 utc | 14

new guinea

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 27 2007 21:08 utc | 15

to be more precise: this move was foiled by saddam and the chinese. you can think what you want about the iraq resistance, but they have denied a us hegemony over china and the chinese took advantege over this. jerusalem has no hinterland.

Posted by: peter hofmann | Nov 27 2007 21:15 utc | 16

the war in iraq is not about oil. it’s about dominance via oil. it was a gamble on highest niveau and went bad, read: http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071125/americas_back_hits_the_breaking_point
it was not planned this way. some years ago cisco said they will be a chinese company in some years. Meaning: they can dominate china. But: the plan to move the empire to china is burst.

Posted by: peter hofmann | Nov 27 2007 21:36 utc | 17

I’ll put my two cents in here and say that the highlands (DOH!!! Africom) of Tanzania near the Kenyan border would be a nice place to settle down roots.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 27 2007 21:41 utc | 18

It will be Dubai. They feel safer in a hostile population that is held down with military power than they do in their own land where there is still too much freedom for them to really be in control.

Posted by: swio | Nov 28 2007 0:25 utc | 19

I think that what shifts around is the imperial meme, the cultural mindset that couples/feeds-back with economic opportunities to create violent expansionism. It’s the host population that’s interesting to me, not the big shots.
The location of specific tycoons is not so interesting or crucial. Physically, most of the really rich Dutch stayed more or less there as the early or later national empires collapsed, fine, now they own their chunks of the US or China or whatever. In general the concept of “they” conveniently sidesteps the way our everyday lives or retirement savings play into the status quo. The ptb are powers, not people, and it means us too. The ptb are wherever the money is, as a first approximation, so I guess it’s East Asia next.

Posted by: boxcar mike | Nov 28 2007 3:55 utc | 20