While I should be out in my gardens beginning the late-summer preparations I typically do at this time of year to get ready for our lovely Canadian winters, I have chosen instead to quickly pen a Contemplation focused on imperial collapse following a conversation I was involved in a couple of days ago. It took place in a hockey arena dressing room, just prior to playing one of my last summer pick-up games. Everyone became involved in discussing the latest musings of the US president, and I couldn’t help but add to the conversation when it seemed appropriate.
Empires don’t become empires because they are well-loved by the various societies and peoples that make them up, with everyone knocking on the door to join; they become empires through violence, power politics, and subjugation. The behaviours and policies that served to bring the empire into existence are for the most part maintained throughout its existence, waxing and waning somewhat, and are applied inequitably depending upon the imperial population in question. Alliances between the core and periphery also wax and wane, reflecting a number of sociopolitical and socioeconomic needs–particularly of the core.
There’s a reason for the saying “Today’s allies may be tomorrow’s enemies.” While often attributed to Henry Kissinger, it’s more likely that it is a version of the following statement he did make: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” Regardless, both statements point to the geopolitical observation that political powers first and foremost act out of self-interest and not some notion of loyalty. Relations, as a result, tend to be transactional and conditional, with the stronger power typically extracting resources from the weaker one.
Empires take such relations to the extreme, placing “loyal” bureaucrats in places of power within subjugated populations to ensure control is maintained and tribute in terms of material and human resources gets transferred from the periphery of an empire towards its core. This arrangement helps to keep those families and individuals ruling the powerful state in their positions of prestige and wealth.
Given my knowledge of these historical patterns, I couldn’t help but add to the conversation taking place in the dressing room. I rarely get involved in such political discourse, preferring to listen to the thoughts of those around me. But I also don’t tend to contribute since I hold views very different from others, especially when it comes to supporting a particular politician or party–I happen to view the entire sociopolitical system as rather “suspect” in its motivations and policies–as anyone who’s read my Contemplations on the misguided idea of “good government” acting on behalf of the governed would know. And although it’s taken a while, I’ve learned most people want their beliefs confirmed not challenged. So apart from occasionally chirping in with a somewhat bemused tone that “They’re all criminals”, I keep my political thoughts to myself.
But the room was abuzz with the latest musings of US President Donald Trump–in the shadow of failed trade negotiations with Canada–to rename Lake Ontario as “Lake America”. A predictable dialogue given our location in the Greater Toronto Area, which sits adjacent to the lake.
If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview.
See my free book offer to readers at the end of this Contemplation…
Now, before I get into my comment and how it reflects my understanding of societal collapse and recurrent patterns of empires, a bit of a history lesson regarding certain place names.
Lake Ontario derives its name from the Wyandot/Huron word Ontarí:io which translates roughly to beautiful or great lake. It is a name given long before the nations of Canada or the United States of America came into existence. The first historical record of this indigenous name appeared in 1660, documented by historian Francis Creuxius. Despite attempts by French explorers to rename it Lac de St. Louis or Lac Frontenac, the indigenous-derived name stuck. Further, the province–established in 1867–was named after the lake and not the other way around. Even the name Canada is indigenous-derived. In 1535, Jacques Cartier misunderstood the intent by local youths attempting to direct him towards the Huron-Iroquois village of Stadacona, believing their use of the term Kanata for “village/settlement” referred to the entire region. This misunderstanding eventually led to the current provinces of Ontario and Quebec being labelled Upper and Lower Canada in 1841.
America, on the other hand, appears to have been named after the explorer Amerigo Vespucci. Its first appearance in the historical record is on a 1507 world map by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller. While not a coloniser, per se, Vespucci was definitely a facilitator of the process; as were all “explorers” who were attempting to find a more economic passage to China for trade.
Now, I’m not surprised that an Imperial President (especially the current one) would gravitate towards a name reflective of colonisation as opposed to the historical, indigenous one–not that my nation state’s government is or has been remarkably better at treating its indigenous groups–empires and their associated colonisations are, after all, about subjugation of others and elevation of themselves and their version of history; others don’t matter. And did you know that the name Mexico is from the Classical Nahuatl term Mēxihco that referred to the heartland of the Aztec….Gulf of America anyone?
Okay, back to my comment. Given my understanding of large, complex societies and their eventual return to their simplified roots, I chimed in where appropriate with something along the lines of “This is exactly what empires do. One of their last desperate acts during their fall is to cannibalise their allies as they seek to maintain the core for a little bit longer.” I wasn’t just describing a pattern here, however; I was naming a phase shift, and one we have seen increasingly during the current US administration.
Recent headlines are not the reason behind my comment; rather, it is based upon my reading of history and the fact that every hegemonic power tends to treat its allies and their resources as labour and warehouses to keep the empire–and especially its core–sustained. This pattern far precedes the current US administration, its trade wars, and territorial musings; and was evident in all US presidential predecessors, if one cared to look behind the curtains they erected to obscure their machinations.
Let’s step back a bit in time and consider the case of the Aztec Empire; one that sticks out in my mind thanks to archaeologist Dr. Michael Spence whom I got to know and work with at the University of Western Ontario when I went there back in the mid-1980s. I vividly recall the lecture in his Mesoamerican archaeology course when he spoke of how the allies of the Aztecs facilitated their demise.
The height of the Aztec Empire was epitomised by an extractive regime where tribute (e.g., food, textiles, obsidian, individuals for sacrifice) flowed from its allied city-states into the imperial core. This flow of goods was the architecture of their power, but when it slowed and famine and unrest grew in the core, they chose to squeeze harder and demand more from their allies rather than invest in improving their relationships with them. Allies weren’t treated as partners but rather as reserves to be drained when required.
It was not surprising, then, that when Cortés arrived with just a few hundred men it was the Tlaxcalans, Totonacs, and Texcocans–allies of the Aztecs–that swelled the Spanish ranks and guided their attacks. The Aztec allies joined the Conquistadors not because they loved the Spanish but because they sought to break an imposed subjugation by a violent and repressive empire whose boot had been on their necks for some time. It’s worth noting here that empires are fairly resilient sociopolitical organisations and the extraction that they carry out on subjugated societies can carry on for very long periods of time prior to their collapse; but when their decline does begin, the pattern does tend to accelerate.
Another example comes from the Athenian Empire. In response to the aggressive nature of Persia, a number of Greek city-states formed a voluntary alliance known as the Delian League. This arrangement gradually morphed into an empire centred in Athens that was no longer a mutual defense pact; it was an entity through which tribute flowed continuously into Athens, helping to fund monumental construction projects such as the Parthenon and the Athenian navy. When the island of Naxos–the first member of the Delian League–attempted to secede, Athens crushed its attempt by forcing it to tear down its protective walls, abandon its naval fleet, and give up its voting rights, basically enslaving its people. When the island of Thasos attempted to assert its rights over its gold mines and trade markets, Athens imposed the same penalties as it had on Naxos after a two-year siege, and also imposed heavy tribute taxes while stripping it of its mainland territories. Allies were turned into subjugated territories when they attempted to assert their sovereignty.
When the Peloponnesian War erupted with Sparta challenging Athenian hegemony, Athens’ allies quickly turned and fought with Sparta. Athens had long since been seen not as a protector worth aiding but as a collector who showed up again and again to collect. Athens didn’t fall because of some single decisive blow but through many defections and resentments that had built up for decades.
Then there are the Achaemenid Persians that ruled through the use of client kingdoms and via a system of satrapies where local autonomy remained, particularly with respect to social customs, but centralised demands existed especially in the form of resource and troop tributes. This arrangement maintained stability for centuries but as the core weakened because of geopolitical overreach, increasing military expenses, and internal decay, the empire demanded more taxes and conscripts. Alexander the Great didn’t simply arrive and militarily conquer the empire; he found a network of grievances which he leveraged to aid his conquest. Cities opened their gates to Alexander and his armies not because they loved Macedon but because they hated Persia more.
These three empires followed the same pattern: expansion and stability built upon subjugation and extraction; increased demands upon the periphery when decline occurred; and allies becoming agents of their downfall due to ongoing subjugation and extraction. The US today is exhibiting the exact same arc–with a focus upon Greenland’s minerals, Canada’s variety of resources, especially hydrocarbons, and tariffs designed to extract concessions from allies as opposed to a balance of trade. And of course the US Empire operates differently from those of the past using economic dominance, military bases, and trade agreements as opposed to direct colonial administration. The underlying dynamic of extraction from weaker partners, however, remains the same. As a result, nations that once trusted US leadership are already rethinking their allegiances.
Most imperial peoples don’t see this pattern, this creation of enemies out of the allies that once sustained them. They simply see the tightening of demands that have always been there and that they are due them because of the wonderful benefits the empire has bestowed upon its allies. And most fail to understand why those once-close allies rush to their funeral rather than to their defense when they come under attack after such a period of increasing subjugation.
What I am seeing with the US’s target of Greenland as a purchasable acquisition, the musings about the annexation of Canada, and the wielding of tariffs against everybody is not new, or even news. It’s a reflection and reinforcement of historical patterns. Current events are simply conforming to my understanding, not informing it.
This is imperial collapse. Not a sudden fall but a gradual turning inward where the centre cannot hold and cannot afford the periphery, so it consumes the resources of its allies. Signs are everywhere if one cares to look: rising debt, military overreach, and domestic instability all make the imperial network increasingly costly to maintain.
Additionally, sovereignty is a huge inconvenience to the empire and language that once turned on the idea of mutual interest has given way to that of extraction. The violence, subjugation, and extraction that built the empire and have been somewhat in the shadows for a time have reemerged, even though their use will be self-defeating in the end. It would seem empires know no other way to cling to their power and wealth as things fall apart.
I made the comment as we threw on our hockey gear to engage with others in our own competitive arena because I have read enough endings to know the signs and it fit in with the conversation. Many still believe diplomacy will win out in the end, but I know history typically shows otherwise.
Empires that eat their allies don’t starve any slower by doing so; they simply die more alone. And they may in fact hasten their decline through this behaviour because, more often than not, when they fall it’s with the help of once-friendly others pushing them over. Athens, Persia, the Aztecs, and many, many others learned this the hard way. A few empires have managed their decline through reform or retreat–the British, for example, transitioned from an empire to a commonwealth–but this requires a willingness to loosen the grip that has been held for a long time. The current US behaviour, however, seems to reflect the opposite impulse: intensified extraction rather than managed disengagement.
History does repeat itself often, perhaps not precisely but certainly with enough similarity to suggest patterns of behaviour exist that are exceedingly difficult to avoid.
Special Offer
If you have made it to the end of this Contemplation, I have an offer for you. Send me an email at olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com requesting a copy of Part 1 of my trilogy and I’ll fire off a PDF of it to you for your “fictional” reading pleasure. If you like the beginning of the tale, please consider ordering the trilogy here: Purchase Book(s) — Olduvai.ca.
What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:
Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.
Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.
If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my “fictional” novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the “profits” of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a “tip” on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…
https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.
Everyone keeps on saying things like "it won't be a sudden fall" but that's linear thinking. Incorrect. The current global economy is based on "just in time" logistics and was already in a fragile state due to all the pressures upon it. Up until now, looking relatively linear. But the whole thing is tightly interconnected. The buffers are gone. Complex systems like that don't behave in a linear way when something critical to their continuation becomes lacking.
They become ripe for a cascading collapse. A rapid one.
This is where your article becomes relevant. All these governments, locked into linear thinking, are behaving in ways that they think will secure their power. Like the attack on Iran.
The opposite is true. I believe that cascading failure has started, triggered by that very attack. There is a bottleneck in sulphur. It is crucial to the continuation of the technosphere, particularly in the form of sulphuric acid. Around 50% was blocked by events in the Strait of Hormuz. China and Russia, major exporters, have both blocked those exports.
At the moment, the cascade is like the early stages of an avalanche. Little failures are happening, those failures are triggering others, all invisible. The cascade won't remain invisible forever. Something we can't yet see is about to give way, bringing the cascade to light. Most of the damage is already done. There are no large stockpiles of sulphuric acid anywhere in the world. It's too aggressively reactive to stockpile like that. The "just in time" logistics system is facing a blockage of a critical resource and this is only one of the triggers activating right now. Think of the way our world works. Think of how dependent megacities are on that super fragile, complex logistics system. It's going to crumble into dust, apparently instantaneously, wherever the cascade arrives.
Add the problems with fertilisers, El Niño, the bond markets, conflicts which can cause all sorts of unexpected impacts.
Nobody I know is paying any attention to this. Normalcy bias makes the whole subject invisible. But mark my words, it's here, it's deadly (gigadeaths deadly) and it's going to appear right out of the blue for almost everyone.
Through its latest symptom of cultural and empire decay (Trump), the US has certainly squandered in record time what goodwill and soft influence it once had, and its “allies” will eagerly turn on it the moment it is profitable to do so.
Considering its culture, I see no voluntary relinquishing of its empirical power and influence being even remotely likely.
I highly recommend Ophuls’ “Requiem for Modern Politics” (1997) for high-level US-focused political philosophy.