Fall of the American Republic

May 2018
A short essay I penned the other day, intended more as an experiment in the prose of historical writing as opposed to being prophetic. It is written from the perspective of a historian about 300 years in the future living in a Robert Heinlein-like society: space travel is assumed, as well as an Earth Federal Republic where citizenship requires public service (military or otherwise).

Some deliberate historical facts are skewed, but this is intentional: do you really think Livy or Plutarch got everything correct?

This should not be taken as an attempt at predicting the future. It is intended as an experiment in the prose of how histories are written: Even history books tell a story of sorts, with protagonists, antagonists and such. While I believe such a history described here is plausible, it is by no means certain.

How many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted over in states unborn, and accents yet unknown?
-Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

Part 1: Background

Many historians attempt to explore the late Republican period of the United States in terms of statesmen and leaders. Taken by itself, this is not necessarily a flawed approach. However, any examination of this chaotic period must necessarily examine the chaotic periods which preceded it: the men and women who occupied the highest offices of the American Republic were no doubt affected by these previous events.

Historians often attribute the mercy shown by Julius Caesar during the Caesarian Civil War a quality of mere virtue. While virtue was likely a part of Caesar's reasoning, bear in mind that as a youth he saw the bloody proscriptions of Marius and Sulla. In fact, Caesar himself nearly fell victim to Sulla's proscriptions and was saved only by the intervention of his mother.

For the American Republic, the so-called "Baby Boomers" who occupied most positions of power were the first generation to have been raised with so much optimism that it was borderline delusional: the prosperity after the Second Great War was unprecedented in history. Unemployment and average salary were at all time highs. The previous generation, called "The Greatest Generation" by orator Tom Brokaw, believed they had fought the last great war in the history of the world. After defeating the legions of Hitler and Japan, a bright future for the youngest of the Great Powers was viewed as inevitable.

Unfortunately, expectations often fall short from reality. History is full of examples. After Davis's Civil War in the mid 1860s, freed negroes were optimistic about their prospects. While the Republican Army under Johnston and subsequent Presidents kept neo-confederates in line, an electoral oddity in the 1880 election initiated a series of events which removed this protection. Without Republican troops to enforce civil rights, the spectre of Jim Crow took hold in the American South.

Remarkably, the old institutions of the South who fought so hard to preserve Jim Crow were beginning to die out after the Second Great War. A new identity was created for the Baby Boomers when many were just coming of age: John F. Kennedy. Volumes could be written about Kennedy and his short Presidency. Suffice it to say that the Boomers who voted in droves for the handsome charismatic war hero received a massive shock when he was assassinated. The disappointing Johnson administration did little to heal the nation.

Contrary to popular belief, the "counter culture" movement of the late 1960s was far less embraced by the Baby Boomers than acid-fueled legends would have you believe. Most Baby Boomers didn't smoke pot or embrace farcical utopian communes. As a whole, a greater percentage of American men volunteered for the legions during Vietnam than did in the Second Great War.

The Vietnam War is etched in the American memory even to this day. President Ronald Reagan spoke of the "Specter of Vietnam" that infected American policy until his consularship. The minor skirmish in Korea had not affected American pride, but the sting of the defeat in Vietnam shattered the idea of American invulnerability. The American Army that had defeated the most professional army in the world during the Jefferson Revolution of 1776 and smashed German armies less than 20 years previous was humiliated by jungle tribesman.

The assassination of Kennedy and the defeat in Vietnam delivered a sobering reality to the optimism immediately after the "World War II", as they called it. American virtue held a "just world theory" among its highest principles. While we have the modern wisdom which tells us the galaxy is anything but, remember: The John Ford westerns staring John Wayne and the superhero films of the 2010s reinforced the idea that justice had an "invisible hand" that would deliver the American Republic from evil.

George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and, most notably, Donald Trump all grew up in this era. What is even more interesting is that never before in the American Republic had the nation seen a string of Presidents who had not seen active military service. The only President of that era who wore a uniform was George W. Bush, but he had not been sent to Vietnam (although he had requested assignment there).

This is an anomaly in history. In neither the Roman Republic or the British Empire could a man pursue politics without service in the military, with a few notable exceptions. But even the great orator Cicero had spent time in the Roman Legions, and likely would have been awarded a triumph for his victory over a group of robbers had the Caesarian Civil War not occurred.

As we know and embrace today, service of some form (military or otherwise) is required for citizenship. But let us not judge our ancestors with modern values: the late Republic was a very chaotic time for the whole planet of Earth. With the stinging defeat of Vietnam, it is understandable that they might abandon martial virtue after it appeared to have failed them.

Historians agree that the Baby Boomers took power with the election of Bill Clinton in 1992. By thist time, the optimism of their youth had been shattered. While President George H. W. Bush had restored some of the national honor with his successful war in Iraq, it did little to assuage the disappointments felt during their impressionable formative years.

When the Baby Boomers formally entered power, it was with largely heavy hearts. Even the defeat of the Soviet Empire, which had dominated propaganda even into the 2010s, failed to erase the fact that in the eyes of many, the American Republic had already fallen.

Part 2: Whispers of Discontent 2001-2015

The generation born of the 1980s knew neither the sorrow of Kennedy's assassination nor the sting of Vietnam. They were topics that might as well have happened in the days of Julius Caesar: abstract concepts found in boring history books. For this generation, the sting on the soul would be the terrorist attack on New York City in 2001. While many of the generation born in the 1980s still clung to an "American Dream" (an odd concept, see further chapters), their great disappointment happened far earlier than for those born in the early 1940s.

Many of the young men who signed up for the legions after this event did so with great optimism. It was a chance for American Exceptionalism to re-assert itself. Fear of terrorism was widespread, and for the first time since Vietnam, men eagerly signed up for the legions.

As the writer Frogsofwar, who was a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghan campaigns, writes:

Neoconservatism was the ideal way for American Exceptionalism to manifest itself. We were clearly the victim: whatever economic damage we may have done to the muslims, not even the most liberal* politicians would call the 9-11 attacks (as they called them in this period) justified. Yet we were disappointed on two fronts: the United States was unwilling to prosecute the Iraq and Afghan wars with anything close to appropriate vigor and many of our peers who failed to join the army (note: "join the army" was a euphemism at the time) mocked us behind closed doors.

Yet like Vietnam which was lost to politics, America presidents were largely paralyzed in their ability to prosecute the conflicts. Bush was faced with an uncooperative Congress, and Obama's neglect of the war bordered on outright treason. Any army relies on the leadership of it's commander. Few legionaries in the Caesar's Legio X doubted the courage of Julius Caesar, and none would entertain the idea that Caesar was not 100% committed to victory. Although the carefully-crafted speeches given by Obama paid lip service to winning, the average soldier can see fake commitment far easier than most generals believe. We all saw that Obama viewed both wars as inconveniences to his political agenda, and subconsciously the morale of the army was shattered.

Like all writers, Frogsofwar's words should not be taken at face value. As a young man, he was an ardent supporter of the American Republic. The abstract concept known as the "American Dream" was very much real to young men of his era. It was as real to them as the Roman belief in their destiny: If one worked hard and acted virtuously, they would enjoy prosperity. But the "Generation Y" would suffer its second collective wound during the Housing Crisis of 2009. Like Frogsofwar's later works show that he largely abandoned his faith in the American Dream but avoided the jaded cynicism embraced by his peers. Yet it was this loss of faith that would propel Donald Trump to the Presidency.

The 2000s also saw the rise what was called "the internet", an early form of our public communications grid. For the first time history, cultures could communicate internally and externally under the guise of anonymity. As the British playwright Oscar Wilde once said:

Man is least himself when he is in his own person. Give him his mask and he will tell you the truth.

An ugliness never before seen in history emerged with the creation of the internet. While the self-indulgent arrogance of humans of that era refused to see it, the mailse of the soul spread by the internet was more vile than Nazi Germany.

Two movements were spawned by the internet. The first was called the "social justice" movement, which started around 2010. These individuals practiced an extreme form of liberalism that surpassed even that of the 1960s counter-culture. While little attention is given to this movement three centuries later, it is most aptly compared to the extreme left wing Jacobins who carried out the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution.

When an extreme movement is spawned, usually another extreme movement spawns to counter it. Around 2012, a movement calling itself the "alt right" began to form. Like the "social justice" faction, their ideology was not uniform and self declared members ranged from outright fascists to conservative libertarians.

The rhetoric flung between these groups was Roman in its nature. The intensity of the malice of these "meme wars" is reminiscent of Cicero's Phillipics. The stinging wit and clever words destroyed Mark Antony's political career without a single battle. The Phillipcs are studied to this day as classic character assassination.

Part 3: **** Hits The Fan

It is difficult to understate how similar the situation of the American Republic of 2015 was with the in the Roman Republic in 48 BC:

-Corruption was rife. Aristocrats dominated the political class. In Rome, a man required significant wealth to pursue a political career. Many borrowed billions from Marcus Licinius Crassus, the richest man in Rome, and it was said that half the Senate owed Crassus money. For the Americans, their "Crassus" were the mighty Political Action Committees. With their armies of lobbyists supported by millions of credits, no one could hope to achieve office without their support.

-Citizens were neglected. As globalization took hold, many America companies outsourced their workforce to foreign countries where the cost of labor was lower. This left large populations of American citizens without work. In Rome, the import of slaves caused much of the low-level jobs to be done by free labor. The streets of Rome were full of citizens whose jobs were taken by slaves.

-Leaders took power by giving away money. In Rome, the distribution of free grain to the citizens of Rome was manipulated by politicians to further their goals. Men like Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompey Magnus sent home billions of credits worth of plundered treasure from their conquests and gave it to citizens in the form of decadent gladiatorial games and, sometimes, literal hand outs. In the American Republic, what we would call "dole spending" accounted for over half the annual budget, more if individual state budgets were included. While we view either practice as blatant election tampering, Americans saw it as a way to help the lowest classes of their society.

Once again, Frogsofwar writes:

As historians, we always have the tendency to view the past with the bias of the present. History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time. Strong men create great societies. Great societies create weak men because the collective body rarely asks them to sacrifice or suffer for their safety. Weak men inevitably create weak societies, and so follows the phrase in the series Battlestar Galactica, All of this has happened before, and it will happen again.

Frogsofwar's words should not be taken at face value. Like Livy, even his conscious attempts to avoid bias inevitably fall short. As a man, Frogsofwar embraced Roman virtues such as auctoritas, the sense of one's social standing, comitas, ease of manner, courtesy and friendliness, clementia, mercy, and dignitas, a sense of self-worth. These are a good description of what were called "western values", and they are applicable even today. But unlike the Romans, Americans were not generally aware of these values. Even Frogsofwar didn't consciously recognize these concepts until his early 30s, and it is certain that the lower social orders never even heard of them. Yet they are visible in American Art. The actor John Wayne was widely believed to have these virtues, although they were not identified as such.

It is a great tragedy that it was not until we stepped into the stars that we realized the concepts Frogsofwar speaks of. While it was true that many academics of his era spoke the same words, it was a time when it was too easy to dismiss a writer simply because his politics were different. It was willful tribal ignorance at its worst, and many worthy ideas were rejected simply because the speaker was of the wrong political party. Like Cicero, Frogsofwar freely admits his guilt of this without shame.

The election of 2016 was a Cold War of sorts. It was a conflict between ideologies where both sides espoused intellectual integrity yet inevitably fell short. Yet it shook the foundations of entrenched power in ways not seen since Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Not since Julius Caesar's Civil War had a nation that possessed so much world power seen a power shake up of this magnitude.

While it is easy to look back and see Donald Trump's election to the Presidency as inevitable, it was far from it. The Late American Republic offers the forensic historian unprecedented access to the personal lives of many figures of the era. Whereas previous historians had to work with badly-translated correspondence often selectively preserved to suit whomever preserved it, the Information Age provides a wealth of information not only in public "social media" posts, but also private messages on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

Trump led the questionable polls for the Republican Primary as early as July of 2015, yet few in either party felt he could win. He had no military or government experience. Although he had proven himself a genius at business and "reality television" star, few could see how Trump would use those skills to control public opinion.

It is impossible to speak of Trump's success in 2016 without carefully studying his opponent. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the wife of former American President Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton had something highly valued in the American Republic called a "rags-to-riches" story. Growing up in poverty, Clinton rose the highest levels of power in the American Republic and built a political war machine of unparalled power. Not even the powerful Bush dynasty compared.

Hillary Clinton was, ironically, a former Republican. In the election of 1964, she campaigned for Republican Barry Goldwater. In the late 1960s, she embraced the nascent cultural marxist movement and had some genuine achievements to her name. As in Rome, marriage was a political tool. Hillary Clinton lacked beauty of Cleopatra, but she managed to marry Bill Clinton in what commentator William O'Reilly snarked was her "greatest achievement." While Hillary Rodham's career was undoubtedly helped by her marriage to Clinton, her ability to maximize its advantages should not be casually dismissed.

While the Clintons were the dominant political powerhouse of the 1990s, by 2008 their power was waning. Hillary Clinton suffered a humiliating loss in the Democratic primary to Barack Obama. This should have been the first sign to the Democratic Party leaders that she was an electoral liability. In 2008 and 2016, both entered the primary and general elections with an air of inevitability. As Gnaeus Pompey Magnus said after his defeat at Phillipi:

We felt as though it was impossible to lose. Such feelings are always a bad sign.

In many ways, Barack Obama was to Democrats in 2008 what Donald Trump was to Republicans in 2016. Even in 2008, Americans were tiring of what some called "politics as usual." Leaders would give speeches written by someone else. Leaders projected a carefully crafted image that was easy for even the most ignorant to see through. The Romans, for all their faults, were far superior in pretending to be one thing while doing another.

The charismatic Senator from Illinois represented a way for Democrats to strike a blow against the party elite. Obama skillfully manipulated this frustration and used his skin color to turn out "black" voters in mass numbers.

If the Clinton political empire was waning in 2008, it was even weaker in 2016. Although it still effectively controlled the Democratic Party, Democrats were seeing the Clintons as the past. Indeed, it had been sixteen years since Bill Clinton was President. The Clintons in 2016 were what Reagan was in 2000: beloved leaders of what felt like ages past to be paraded at party fundraisers.

Romans like Julius Caesar understood why it was so important to stay politically relevant. A politician who steps too far out of the eyes of the electorate fades to irrelevancy. For Caesar, his task was even more difficult. He spent seven years in Gaul, communicating his intent to his allies in Rome with letters. Without social media, he relied on many political allies to both keep him informed of new developments and advance his agenda. Like Trump tweeting directly to the American public instead of using traditional press conferences, Caesar wrote letters that were read in the Roman Forum and heard by even the poorest Romans. By constantly sending spoils home from Gaul, the public never forgot him. His entire invasion of Britain was a military stalemate at best (and probably a failure) but a public relations triumph. The Romans viewed Britain the way Americans of the 1960s viewed "outer space": a mystical place of strange new worlds and new civilizations. By stepping onto this yet-unexplored island, Caesar was effectively the Roman James T. Kirk, except he was real.

There was an unmistakable arrogance about the American political elite of the Late Republican Era: There was a sense that candidates from the Bush or Clinton families "deserved" a particular office because it was "their turn." While this is not uncommon in history, Americans always had a tendency to "overdo" things, rightly or wrongly. While figures like Napoleon and Julius Caesar are often accused of possessing of arrogance such as this, neither had any illusions that power could be gained without great sacrifice.

Both Napoleon and Caesar were experienced combat veterans. Service in combat was not viewed as it is today, which is closer to the Roman perspective. To the Romans, serving in the legions was proof that an aspiring politician was willing to sacrifice everything for the good of the Republic. While they didn't realize it, combat service instills in a man or woman a certain confidence and wisdom. Soldiers who see real combat realize how unfair the world can be when friends die who deserved life, and the unworthy survive. Any feeling of entitlement evaporates when the chaos of combat murders without justice.

Yet this was a new development among the American political elite. While military service was never a requirement to hold high office, it was an advantage in both elections and leadership. Many U.S. Presidents never served in the military and had successful Presidencies. But in 1950, the Reserve Officer Training Corps at Harvard University graduated over 200 2nd Lieutenants into the "army." Harvard was an institution where the political class sent their offspring. But by 2000, it was graduating less than 40. The elites of America were rejecting the idea that they were required to risk their lives for the Republic. No politician would claim that military service was "beneath them", but proof is always found in action.

While military service does not guarantee a strong society, a feeling of obligation by the elite fundamental. What we view as common knowledge today was barely in the public consciousness of Americans: The lower orders are obligated to the elite, but the elite are obligated to provide good leadership. When the elite lose this sense of accountability, the lower orders have no reason to fulfill their obligations. It is simple military leadership: A good general never asks his troops to do something he would not do himself.

Revolutions happen when a social class, high or low, starts losing from the existing social order. In 2015, more than half of American parents believed their children would be worse off than they were. When this happens, all faith in the existing order crumbles. The hope of any parent is to see their kin surpass them. Gradually, the feeling of hopelessness festers, leading to a feeling that they have little to lose. When a people feel like they have nothing to lose, **** hits the fan.

Part 4: Trump Crosses The Rubicon

If you were to ask any American to name a Roman, all but a few intellectuals would say Julius Caesar. But if you were to ask any Roman in 50 BC who was most likely to be remembered in two thousand years, most would say Gnaeus Pompey Magnus. Julius Caesar was the junior member of the First Triumvirate and Pompey was seen as the leading man in Rome. This is not to say that Caesar was an unknown, but like Trump he was merely one of many celebrities among hundreds.

When Donald Trump entered the Republican primary, it was viewed as a joke. To the Republican elite, he was not to be trusted: he had opposed President Bush quite vocally and had even identified as a Democrat not too long before. The elite of both parties dismissed the Trump candidacy as a public relations stunt that was not to be taken seriously.

Few Romans believed Julius Caesar would prevail in the civil war when he crossed the Rubicon with a single legion. Pompey had significantly more legions at his command and the backing of the Roman Senate. But like the optimates led by Pompey, American leaders failed to realize the seriousness of the situation until it was too late.

It was understandable that many viewed Trump's electoral prospects with skepticism, even after he won the primary. Polls conducted by genuinely credible polling agencies predicted a Clinton victory by at least a small margin, and in many cases, a large one.

Neither Caesar nor Trump were members of the plebians whose cause they championed. Caesar came from a wealthy patrician family, and Trump inherited millions from his father's real estate business. At the time, the elite of the America Republic couldn't understand why poor whites in the American Midwest thought a billionaire was the right man to represent their interest. Further, how could conservative Christians believe that a man whose extramarital affairs and moral failures were common knowledge believe Trump would promote values he so often violated?

Caesar and Trump understood the heartbeat of Rome and America. As Frogsofwar writes:

It is the failure of all intellectuals to realize that those who find little pleasure in the acquisition of knowledge are not stupid. Simply because we understand Aristotlean logical does not mean that men who have no idea who Aristotle was don't know when they're getting ****ed. Even those who never went to high school know when an existing order is no longer to their benefit. Like the Romans of 49 BC, the American people were not calling for fair elections, they were calling for jobs. They weren't looking for academics who dogmatically adhered to the Bible or the Constitution, they wanted to regain the hope that their children would have a better life than they did. Neither Democrat nor Republican was offering this until Trump. As more and more jobs went overseas, it struck at the American ideal of fairness: shouldn't my government be looking out for me instead of starving children in Ethiopia? While the Trump candidacy may have been a joke initially, he crossed the Rubicon when he declared "I will build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it."

Relations between the American Republic and Mexico are worthy of several volumes. After becoming independent from Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, Mexico fought a disastrous war with the American Republic in the 1840s. By 2016, illegal immigration affected American disproportionately. Illegal immigration had a moderate effect on employment overall, and the negative effect was mostly felt by the poorest of Americans. The Mexican government was more than willing to let the poorest Mexicans be someone else's problems, and the ineffective government in Mexico City would be helpless to stop it even if they wanted do.

Trump's famous declaration were initially seen as political suicide. He not only proposed building a wall on one of the most peaceful borders in the world, he deliberately insulted a country seen even by conservatives as an American ally. More importantly, such declarations were taboo to serious politicians accustomed to giving generic teleprompter speeches that said as little as possible. American politicians always avoided taking a position unless they had to, preferring to speak in vague generalizations of little substance.

In the eyes of many voters, a candidate was taking a political risk by speaking outside the generic proselytizing of liberal or conservative values. This struck a chord with Americans: finally, we have someone who speaks their mind!

It is easy to see the inevitably of events after they happen. But Caesar's nearly lost everything at the Battle of Dyrrachium had Pompey not made an elementary military mistake. While appearing supremely confident, Trump could not be sure how Americans would react to a man who spoke his mind. Indeed, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders were members of Congress known for speaking their minds, yet both had accomplished very little after decades as politicians.

The details of the election of 2016 could fill as many volumes as a history of the Caesarian Civil War. Suffice it to say this will come in a later edition. Just as Caesar came with in a hair of defeat, Trump won the election of 2016 by the smallest of margins. In fact, he lost the popular vote, and carried "swing states" by margins of less than 1%.

Part 5: Conclusion

The success of the Trump administration will be covered in a later volume. The historically aware should remember that it was not Julius Caesar who made Rome Great Again, but his adopted son, Gaius Octavian, later Augustus. For all his legendary genius, Caesar made a mistake that would cost him his life: he failed to realize that when those who have everything to lose by changing the existing social order are pushed, they will eventually push back. Caesar believed he had placated his opponents by granting them clemency after he won the war. This was in stark contrast to the Marian and Sulla proscriptions. Yet the assassins who murdered him on the Ides of March, Brutus and Cassius, had not only received pardon from Caesar but were given title and power by him.

Mark Antony, Octavian and Lepidus of the Second Triumvirate learned from Caesar's error. In a bloodbath, they killed all the supporters of Cassius and Brutus. While this is justifiably criticized, it is understandable. Contemporary forgiveness for these actions cannot be attributed solely to the values of the era or powerlessness of the victims. After decades of civil war, the people were ready to embrace stability, even if purchased in blood.

As an advanced civilization, 99% of our citizens will never see violence outside of simulated violence in entertainment. Few citizens will ever suffer the fear of being brutally murdered. After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, Americans were scared while the government reacted. This fear was short lived, and in two years the American Navy was bombing Tokyo. The Romans had no such luxury and spent decades with uncertainty of Civil War lingering over them. They embraced the stability and positive reform Octavian offered no matter how high the price.

It is a trite cliche to state that history repeats itself, but the stubborn nature of humans warrants constant, if tiring, emphasis. We keep attempting to build paradise on Earth, and never live up to the morals we claim are sacred. While Cato spoke against bribery in elections, he used his influence to save his brother from those charges. Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence sit in the shadow of the slaves he owned. Bernie Sanders took money from Super PACs while denying he did so. The "social justice" movement claimed to champion free speech and tolerance of those different from themselves while using yellow journalism to brutally silence anyone who deviated from their agenda.

Hypocrisy is the universal virtue. It allows us to justify doing a little evil to accomplish a greater good in times of crisis. But it also blinds us to the lessons of history by making it easy to dismiss our ancestors as primitive or barbaric. We arrogantly presume that had we been alive in those days, we would have fought against what we view as wrong. The American President Ronald Reagan once declared that the price of peace was eternal vigilance and we were always but one generation from tyranny. We foolishly rationalize that "because it is the <current year>" we are immune to the mistakes of our forefathers. But we are closer to our ancestors than we like to think.

Ask yourself: If presented with the opportunity to acquire a vast fortune, romantic fulfillment and happiness as you define it for the simple price of murdering one innocent person with no chance of ever being caught or punished, would you do it?


Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
Iowa USA

Not sure about the proper subforum, but I found the discussion, or mock 300 year overview, of Vietnam and the Boomer Presidents to be well presented.


Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
Well, I read your entire piece and I must compliment you on your writing skills. I can tell that you've put a lot of effort into this project. With that I would like to offer you some friendly criticism and perhaps some perspective.

You've bitten off a big hunk that is more like gathering research before assembling a coherent narrative. Fact is one thing and writing fiction is another. Curiously fiction can reveal more truth than cold hard facts based on a point of view.

Kill your TV, do it today!

There are so many issues that you and I would find ourselves in complete opposition but there is no point in being specific because you are writing future fiction. It should tell us that there are always, always 2 sides to every story and sometimes more. The passage of time will change common acceptance of many issues to suit the powers that be at that time.

Well illustrated in Orwell's 1984. I recommend it.

Let me compliment you on your knowledge of Roman history. This could serve as a template in a future history. Contemporary politics is a vile swamp composed of pure BS. As in the last days of Rome the entire government and the media have been bought off.

The first casualty of war is the truth. And governments lie.

Keep writing! I am glad you've come to this site. I'm always learning something new here.

Case in point, The US stole California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado from Mexico. Go figure?

300 years from now, if the US is even remembered, it would be for the first landing on the moon and venturing out into the solar system. Iraq won't even be a blip...
Last edited:
Jun 2018
Tromso, norway
I am unable to read the large quotation because of my eyesight, but I am reminded of Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward. As a side note, there was a famous blind Bulgarian psychic called Baba Vanga (she is dead now). According to her Obama would be the last democratically elected president in the US. She died before Trump.


Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
I am unable to read the large quotation because of my eyesight, but I am reminded of Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward. As a side note, there was a famous blind Bulgarian psychic called Baba Vanga (she is dead now). According to her Obama would be the last democratically elected president in the US. She died before Trump.
Along the lines of Richard Bellamy's, "Looking Backward, published in 1888.

Jules Verne wrote his own future book in 1863. "Paris in the 20th Century " I remember when this book was finally published for the first time in 1994.

Verne put the manuscript in a safe where it was forgotten, only to be discovered by his great-grandson in 1989. The original French version was finally published in 1994, and an English translation by*Richard Howard*was published by*Random House*in 1996.

Written in*1863*but first published 131 years later (1994), the novel follows a young man who struggles unsuccessfully to live in a technologically advanced, but culturally backwards world. Often referred to as Verne's "lost novel",[citation needed]*the work paints a grim,*dystopian*view of a technological future civilization.
Many of Verne's predictions were remarkably on target. His publisher,*Pierre-Jules Hetzel, would not release the book because he thought it was too unbelievable, and its sales prospects would be inferior to Verne's previous work,*

Michael, this book is right up your alley..

The wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_in_the_Twentieth_Century

Hold the Ctrl key down ans scroll with the mouse wheel.. the type will get bigger and easier to read..
Hopefully you have a PC and not a MAC
Ctrl key is on the bottom row... One on each side.
Last edited: