::::::::
This is something that most people were never taught in history class. Instead, anyone receiving a public education in the U.S.A. is told that the Roman Empire collapsed because it was attacked by barbarians and "sacked." This supposed "sacking" did take place, but it happened about 500 years after the Praetorian guards sold the empire to a senior Senator, convinced by his wife and daughter "and his parasites...that he deserved the throne."While "the Barbarians at the Gate" is an easy kind of catch-all term used by historians to describe the events leading to the collapse of Rome, it is nothing short of misleading and false.
In the days after the "Sale of the Empire" as it was called by historian Edward Gibbon, and long before any barbarians were at any of Rome's multiple gates, the majority of the Roman citizenry, distracted by their simultaneous poverty and the never-ending entertainment spectacles provided for them by prominent public leaders, almost failed to notice the auction of the office by the Praetorian guards, though they understood the depravity of the situation a few weeks later and demanded action.
Although the quest for leadership within the Roman government had long been a brutal and oftentimes fatal power struggle between political dictators, limited to those who commanded armies and accumulated wealth pillaging foreign territories and skimming funds from the public treasury, never before had the sanctity of public office been so blatantly exposed to the citizens as an illusion, a theatrical front for those who really wielded power within their society, the Praetorians, the professional soldiers who were first employed by Augustus to secure the capitol and quell any opposition through coercion and force, only to become an independent political force a century after the death of that clever tyrant .
It was clear that the military establishment, the Praetorians, who were first utilized by ambitious would-be dictators to gain control of the state, had since become acutely aware of themselves and the power they wielded as an independent entity above civil law and civilian politics. The Praetorian leaders realized that they could appoint civilian leadership in accords with their own interests, which demanded perpetual conquests abroad to keep the official Army away from the capital and occupied as well as intermittent periods of instability and lawlessness on the streets of the capital, to justify the presence of a permanent, domestic security force.
Two ambitious and extremely wealthy candidates approached the Praetorian camp after they murdered an emperor who, by all accounts, was virtuous and wise, solely because he sought to impose discipline on the Praetorian camp and restore them to their traditional role as protectors of a civilian government.
On the night of his death, each candidate began pledging huge bonuses to the guards in hopes of purchasing Imperial privileges, as it was understood that the title could only be granted with the consent of the Praetorian leaders.
In the end, a well-respected and virtuous Senator "purchased" the Empire after drastically outbidding his opponent. Though the winning Senator seemed incorruptible, well-qualified, and even entitled to the office, nonetheless the means by which he acquired his position was simply too much for popular Roman sensibilities and 66 days later he was killed by soldiers who feared retribution from the populace and under the threat of an approaching general who was charged with restoring the "majesty of the Roman empire."
The Emperor's last words are said to have been, "But what evil have I done? Whom have I killed?"
Didius Julianus, the unfortunate and opportunistic Senator turned major shareholder of Rome Inc., was justifiably surprised at his grisly demise. Unlike his imperial predecessors, he hadn't poisoned any relatives to gain office. He hadn't murdered a great number of political opponents once he gained power or in order to ascend to the Imperial purple. He had paid the troops well and the palace guards more than they had ever been paid before. He wasn't especially belligerent or reckless, in that he hadn't waged war on any of Rome's peaceful, though "uncivilized" neighbors, although that was the surest way to gain position and power at the time.
According to contemporary standards, he was as virtuous and wise as any leader within memory and probably the most deserving of the office of Emperor. But in spite of all this, he was troubled by an uneasiness that kept him up at night, and, according to Gibbon:
"...after the crowd of flatterers dispersed and left him to darkness, solitude, and terrible reflection, he passed a sleepless night; revolving most probably in his mind his own rash folly...and the doubtful and dangerous tenure of an empire which had not been acquired by merit but purchased by money."
As Julianus settled into his first month in office, the discontent in Rome was widespread and was being violently directed at the guards, and briefly, a great majority of Rome's citizens rightly perceived that their political leadership and their government was completely and totally corrupt, and that this was due to militarism and the supra-legal nature of the Office of Emperor.
Again, as Gibbon puts it:
"The lawyers and historians concurred in teaching that the Imperial authority was held not by the delegated commission but by the irrevocable resignation of the senate; that the emperor was freed from the restraint of civil laws, could command by his arbitrary will the lives and fortunes of his subjects, and might dispose of the empire as of his private patrimony."
The Romans had fully realized that it didn't matter who was in power, or how they had performed in the political arena, because a person's mere participation in the political game was proof of a complete lack of integrity and morality and a subservience to "guards" who did more to endanger the security of the city than they did to protect it from harm.
The people had been controlled and coerced by power for so long that they had forgotten justice, and the shrine of Jupiter Capitolinus, the patron of the city center who was worshiped as justice incarnate, had been neglected for quite some time. In it's place stood statues of strong men and dictators, few of which survived longer than a generation before being torn down or defaced.
For a brief moment in time, as if recovering from a seizure, the Roman citizenry understood that it didn't matter how "good" a man was in private, how capable he was of discharging the duties of the emperor, how much he understood the plight of the urban poor, or how he dealt with the challenges Romans faced from foreign enemies, faulty economics, and moral decline, because their society was deranged and out of control and subordinate to the might of Arms instead of laws. Alienated from justice and legitimacy, the entire populace understood, only once, the full scope of the problems which plague any empire. The problem wasn't the man sitting on the throne, it was the throne itself and the nature of the guards who swore to protect any man sitting on it, for a price, of course.
So after one last expression of republicanism, which the Romans successfully practiced for hundreds of years, and an outcry which demanded the death of Julianus at the hands of a liberating army led by a commander from the front, the spirit of democracy was extinguished in the west for almost 2000 years.
The general, whose name was Severus, chastised the Praetorians and banished them outside the city limits. However, far from dissolving the institution, he substituted the old guards for men he believed to be loyal to his cause, and practiced militarized politics until his death 20 years later.
1,816 years later, and nearly 5,000 miles away from the scene of this spectacle, when the next President of the United States takes his oath of office on January 20th, 2009, this country will find itself mimicking this historical drama and once again, it will be the resignation of a Senate and the cowardice of a popular assembly to blame, along with a distracted, misinformed or disinterested public and a powerful, pervasive militarism and addiction to warfare and covert politics.
Republics and democracies, once they have become accustomed to empire, have always dissolved themselves through suicide and only rarely have they been destroyed by foreign aggressors. The American Republic has proven to be no exception to this trend as our civilian society is stripped of its ability and desire to practice democratic politics in a civil manner .
Our government's primary function is no longer the preservation of liberty or the administration of our laws. It is no longer a civil government. It's primary role is no longer to serve as the guarantor of the privileges and rights among a majority of it's citizenry or even as a vehicle for citizens to enact civil judgments and determine public policy.
Once our government became primarily committed to perpetual war and the idea of global reach, and once our society fully embraced the idea of living under a perpetual security crisis, the most powerful and ambitious citizens, those familiar with managing wars, crises, and subordinating civil governments to military and corporate interests through subversion, violence, and espionage, made an effective power grab and it is this same group of opportunists who continue to dissolve the ability of the Congress to check or counter the actions of an increasingly radicalized executive branch, dangerously dictating imperial prerogatives.
The reality is, money, namely profits gained from warfare, determines national policies, and anyone who doesn't face up to this reality is simply entertaining a nostalgic fantasy.
The sole purpose of our military is to enforce corporate contracts around the globe and in conflict-ridden regions rich with extractable resources. Creating instability so that commodity prices rise and businessmen reap profits from massacres and oppression is a practice we inherited from the British and exercise in a way that the East India Company could not have possibly imagined.
This is priority number one.
If brutalized or exploited populations imitate any of our ceremonial democratic practices while we attempt to plunder their land or force them into one-sided security and investment contracts, this is purely coincidental and of absolutely no consequence to the controlling interests who prosecute and manage the conflict.
More often than not, in order for any country to survive the onslaught and predation of war corporatists, generals, politicians and the businessmen who lead all of them into battle, they must adopt the vices of our empire, which involves political subversion, espionage, intimidation, and the mobilization of international capital for the purpose of waging asymmetrical warfare against civilian populations, including U.S. citizens.
Our government is a corporation dedicated to the war industry and supervised by gangsters posing as "public servants."
Invocations of "national security," the mantra of the executive branch since the 1940's, keep assassins, officeholders, and "private security forces", safe from journalistic scrutiny and thus subject to no law and no system of morality.
Our money is taken from us and the only reason we are given for this extortion is that it is necessary for our protection. To quote Henry James: "How can we, who cannot honestly govern ourselves, take up the task of governing others? Are we to govern the Philippines from Tammany Hall?" As we now approach the 60th anniversary of our project to spread Tammany Hall around the globe, our own shortcomings and corruption at home have never been more evident, our inability to govern ourselves justly have never been more apparent.
A majority of our "political" leaders are not interested in preserving a civil society, our laws, the domestic peace or our few shared customs, but are instead solely reliant and addicted to the preservation of global, industrial warfare, the U.S.'s preeminent leadership in that industry, and close coordination with the companies who manufacture, procure, or sell items necessary to sustain a "permanent war economy" so that they can buy a seat in government.
America is not the policeman of the world because a policeman acts in accordance with recognized laws and within a moral framework.
No, America is the world's greatest security guard, available to the highest bidder, and our greatest exports are warfare and weapons in exchange for financial tributes to the wealthiest 1% of our citizenry.
All politicians act in the interest of this industry first and foremost, and neither Obama nor McCain is an exception to that sad standard. We are getting a corporate loyalist, first and foremost, dedicated to the military and to profits wrought from contracts formed with weaker military leaders and governments under duress, and if it it works out that the liberties, security, and privileges of the other 99% of Americans are advanced or preserved as a result of our practicing corporate socialism and privatized warfare, then it's simply a by-product of our un-shakeable commitment to designed destruction, and our acceptance of authoritarianism and inequality. When this happens it is as random as being struck by lightning and is evidence that most people see the government as some kind of incomprehensible divinity which brings terror or gifts, but is completely beyond their power or understanding.
90 generations ago, professional soldiers and mercenaries commanded by politically ambitious generals, roamed the borders of the known world terrorizing "uncivilized" tribes, exploiting their resources and stealing their wealth, in order to secure political leverage and power at home.
Warfare was wholly privatized. And warfare is largely privatized today.
The public tax system was used in order to transfer wealth from a majority of the citizenry to a lawless minority subordinate to the military which had seized total control of a once-democratic, lawful government. The tax system operates in this way today. This is called "trickle-down" economics and it's certainly trickling-down all over most of us.
Today, taxation is used to build and sell arms and technology to ideological and moral enemies of our nation, so that public officials can look forward to investment returns and a comfortable retirement once they leave office. While politicians on both sides of the aisle shamelessly dismiss any claim that their dedication to international business endeavors and extortion could possibly constitute a conflict of interest in one breath, they stoke religious and moral outrage with another on "hot key" issues in order to preserve their own political position and popularity and in most cases they are so far removed from the population in terms of values that they see nothing wrong from privately benefiting from instability, inequality, injustice, war, and conflict, and feeding lies to the unenlightened. This kind of deceptive and selfish leadership is simply accepted as a new kind of political realism.
The recent FISA bill, the many failed calls for Impeachment, the lack of Senatorial outrage at Bush and Cheney's policies, the PATRIOT Act, all of these should prove to us that no politician is seriously trying to dismantle the "great game" or challenge the real power-brokers, i.e. the war industrialists and their "friends" in government, along with the businessmen who oversee the taxation and intimidation of foreign governments, because they know that this would be fatal to their political careers and possibly their lives, and because they are cowards, and will allow the game to go on as long as they are able to beg for a few scraps in the name of the "public good" and carry on some false crusade in the name of "the people."
Because if they wanted to address the root of the issue, and treat the source of the sickness instead of the severity of the symptoms, they would ban all private contributions to political campaigns, which is the appropriate, reasonable and moral thing to do.
This is more than a "bi-partisan issue" to borrow a ridiculous word from contemporary political discourse, in that this is an issue that involves the very preservation of democratic order within our society. We are not a democracy or a republic simply because we say so and because we have songs about these things. Democracy isn't an object or a prize that is defended, it is a behavior and a practice and a tradition which we either choose to preserve or don't. Outlawing bribery is perhaps the simplest of all decisions and is a question that should preclude all others when discussing elections and democracy.
Obama, like all politicians, is not immune to corrupt politics and connections, and I say this only to bring the saintly image he enjoys in the media back into the real world.
Enthralled supporters who ecstatically chant "change, change, change" couldn't be more on target. Our government is about change. It is about change and cents. Change and cents gained from war and conflict and weapons sales to foreign governments.
Democratic elections, which should involve substantive change and sense, when able to be purchased, are about dollars and cents.
UBS, one of Obama's largest contributors, transferred money which it held on behalf of the Federal Reserve to official enemies of the United States government. In 2004, the Fed fined UBS a mere $100 million for an act which should either constitute treason or an act of war against the United States. In the first quarter of 2004 alone, UBS enjoyed over $1 billion in profits.
The problem with accountability lies in the fact that you can't commit treason in the borderless world of international finance, unless you cost shareholders money. Even when you finance the ideological enemies of a country with money taken from the taxpayers of that country, there's not much recourse for people to take against the bank. So the house wins, so to speak.
Global conspiracy??? Oh, no, not at all. Honest mistake, right? Either way, this is the ridiculous borderless world of unnacountabilty which we inhabit, which we are told is evidence of our collectively realizing a higher plane of human potential. Globalization is just so...totally unavoidable and mesmerizing.
Instead of providing for the public safety or the public welfare, wealth was extorted from the majority of the population in Rome to fund a great power game between the most ruthless and ambitious of the "top" citizens and generals. They often coordinated with the leaders of foreign nations and militant tribes to reach tentative peace agreements over the heads of the Senate and the citizenry.
Because power over the military and the public treasury was given to individuals instead of preserved in public institutions and offices, alliances and agreements frequently dissolved and hostilities re-opened after the death of an illegitimate power-broker such as a general or a provincial governor. The ability of private individuals or unauthorized citizens to engage in diplomatic negotiations with the enemy frequently led to instability and periods of political terror.
Surely, a multi-trillion dollar agreement between a U.S. Corporation and a foreign government constitutes just such a breach, and the profits taken from such endeavors and funneled to elections should be seen as throughly corrupting any potential candidate, in a way that offends the sensibilities of most Americans.
My point is that this game continues today, largely recognizable and unchanged from the last days of the Roman empire, although the stakes are much higher and the capacity of mankind to either poison or destroy all of human civilization in it's entirety is very real.
The ability of individuals to make decisions affecting millions of people is amplified to a greater degree than has ever been experienced in history and if untethered from any national or group interest, from any civil government, and in the spirit of globalization, allowed to roam rampant around the globe, with the backing of mercenary forces and equipped with modern weaponry, today's warlords will bring just as much terror, lawlessness, murder, and pillage to the homes of citizens as the generals and emperors of old. And if the illegitimate beneficiaries of empire do not visit this upon us, then our many "uncivilized" neighbors will, by adopting the tactics that we use to terrorize populations around the globe.
The scramble for imperial power often involved the massacre of innocent civilians, and frequently plunged Rome into periods of total anarchy, which were then followed by systematic political massacres and suppression. As Roman society continued down this path, the distance between crises shortened and the pervasiveness of militarism and imperialism became much more pronounced in the everyday lives of the citizenry.
The entire culture was brutalized when it internalized the values of the military. The gladiatorial games became less sport and instead of ending with injuries and clemency ended with executions and torture.
Our own developing obsession with violent spectator sport, which adopts military euphemisms and praises calculated violence so long as it is deemed appropriate, is a telling sign of how much violence and brutality western society is capable not only of tolerating but even enjoying. I marvel at news anchors lamenting massacres in high schools with a straight face only to turn around and celebrate bone-crushing tackles, bombs into the endzone, and brutal sacks, followed by a brief segment about whichever mob show is number one in the Nielsen ratings and a quick mention of missile defense shields.
Instead of fighting for survival or in order to preserve a stable political system, Roman generals were allowed to raid other lands and nations at will, much like C.E.O.'s and financiers are allowed to tie up tax dollars in foreign economies and create intricate dependencies with other nations and governments so that any regional conflict can be said to require military intervention in the name of the "national interest."
The American public pays to maintain the war machine, it pays industries to move manufacturing overseas and in agreement with governments who oppress their people and are ideologically incompatible with our morals, and the public pays the human cost of conflict again when soldiers are sent to mop up disasters caused by the dirty dealing of corporate chieftains who have neglected or maladministered the public trust by carelessly handing public money to tyrants or by arming dangerous fanatics and dictators in foreign nations.
The ethos of militarism and destruction, the arming of ideological enemies, the autonomy of military commanders and the military interest, these things are exactly what plunged the western world into fear and darkness for 2,000 years and we are still not rid of the same tendency to destroy ourselves and civil government today.
In Rome, warlords kept the spoils of war and distributed the profits directly to their soldiers. They also set the tax rates for the peoples they subjugated to "pay" for the wars which they had initiated without cause. Then they handed over tax-collecting contracts to businessmen who agreed to administer the finances and governments of the newly acquired provinces in their interest of the conquering general and his business retinue, often independent of the senate's oversight, so that the process could continue elsewhere and the profits could be kept out of the public treasury, where it was sent during the Republican era after any victorious campaign.
Once the military powers of government were used to aggrandize certain types of men, instead of all citizens controlling and limiting the powers of government by practicing democracy and diplomacy, arbitrary terror became an everyday reality.
The people along the borders whom the Romans massacred, tortured and exploited were not recognized as human beings until they agreed to submit to the taxation schedules of the publicani, as the businessmen were called. Only after agreeing to their status as servants to the Roman war machine were they allowed some limited rights, such as the right to own property, and in most cases their enfranchisement required them to donate much of their wealth or manpower to the very same army or commanding General who had destroyed their community.
This bred a kind of dormant hostility and resentment and led to numerous mutinies, betrayals, and conflicts in the future, when "Roman" generals were in fact North African, Eastern European or German mercenaries who had once been proscribed for service after being deprived of their native culture.
To be "Roman" no longer meant to be from the city, or from Italy, or to be familiar with the laws or practices of Roman government, or the customs of the people, or the history of the society, instead it simply meant to command an army which still wore the traditional Roman uniform or employed Roman battle tactics, to use the traditional military hierarchy of office, and to have access to the public treasury in Italy and the neighboring provinces. Rome wasn't destroyed, it vanished after a few generations of despotism and militarism.
Absorption into the Roman Imperial system required the sacrifice of political autonomy, though not cultural traditions, and above all subservience to a destructive, all-consuming militarism which knew no borders or restraint, unburdened by civil laws or moral decency, an ideology which hilariously deemed itself as the "Roman Peace."
It was this kind of delusional and dangerous effrontery to the dignity of the empire's neighbors, along with the moral weakness that is characteristic of any society where servility to authority is the most practiced virtue, which caused the city of Rome and the military cults to be hated, then despised, and later completely destroyed and abandoned.
The city that was sacked by the Goths might have been in the same place as the one inhabited by Romans for nearly 1,000 years, but in no way did the population resemble the first 8 generations of people who built and protected the city and faithfully administered the public laws on the seven hills so that they might live together justly and equitably, except in name only.
Only a few generations after the sale of the Empire, Rome's enemies had internalized the values and adopted the tactics of her most vicious and ruthless leaders. Understanding the game almost simultaneously along each of Rome's borders, several chieftains and tribes were able to push the top-heavy and deranged government in any direction it wished, capable of easily trouncing Rome's mercenary forces who practiced warfare so that greedy and corrupt officials could enjoy luxuries at home and exercise dominion over fellow citizens in a nominal republic.
As the Congress continues to neglect the abolishment of private campaign contributions and fails to admit the conflict of interest between business and government that now implicates every elected official who accepts private contributions, and as the largest sector of our economy continues to be dependent on the war industry, the balance of our government remains vulnerable to tyranny, terror, instability, and destruction.
In 1976, the total amount spent towards the presidential elections by both candidates was $171 million dollars. If we conservatively adjust this total for inflation, this amounts to around $600 million being spent by both sides during the entire process.
As of May 2008, the total funding for the campaigns amounts to nearly $1 Billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan institute that monitors campaign spending. There is every reason to expect that the total by the end of the 2008 campaign process will be nearly double the total from 30 years ago.
30 years ago Americans faced a serious crisis in government. The President performed criminal acts and believed it within his power to terrorize and harass the citizenry.
Today, the President and his senior advisors, basically the same group who were junior advisors to Nixon and Ford, continue these same dictatorial practices, only the temporary measures taken by Congress to counter such behavior have expired.
30 years ago Americans faced an energy crisis.
Today, we are no closer to a viable solution which will free us from dependency on oil, especially foreign oil.
30 years ago, still reeling from memories of the public executions of political leaders who advocated peaceful co-existence and demilitarization, Americans relied on a charismatic character actor to restore America's image and their faith in the integrity of government.
It proved to be nothing more than a changing of the guard.
Today, we can recognize the results of valuing image above substance, of not confronting real political problems and neglecting the practice of national democracy in the name of global missions. We face the same problems, we find ourselves allegedly engaged in yet another global conflict which we are told will span more than a few generations, and all that is asked of us is that we go shopping and leave it to the professionals.
It all seems so familiar.
