Skip navigation

This is not a political blog, nor do I intend to turn it into one. None the less, having the opportunity to live in such interesting times, I would feel remiss in not taking the opportunity to share my views. Few generations have the luck – and the burden – of being born at the crossroads of history.

First, some clarity. I’m a reasonably prosperous citizen of the United States. I have not yet been hit by economic contraction, nor am I likely to be in the near future (famous last words). That’s not to exclude the rest of the world – what I’m hoping to say has a great deal of relevance for everyone. It’s just the perspective I have, and the primary audience is other USians.

American empire

The US is the world’s largest empire. I don’t mean this in an abstract sense, but a very real one: when 5% of the earth’s population uses 25% of its natural resources, there’s no dancing around the fact that the same country has the world’s largest military, regularly invades foreign countries, and holds military bases scattered across the globe. We use that military dominance to enforce economic dominance, as empires usually do – much crowed about “free trade” is one such tool. Rising powers use trade barriers to shelter and grow domestic industries, while dominant powers use force to lever open markets for their merchants. Before the US, Britain – holder of the world empire of the time – was the major exporter of free trade propaganda.

With that said, the USA is not a particularly brutal overlord. Though Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have drawn the short end of the stick, America is not generally fond of civilian massacres as Britain, Rome and indeed most empires are. Oh, we kill people all right, and stir up ethnic violence and destroy infrastructure – but we don’t generally take machine guns to crowds. One can say a thing is evil without saying it is all forms of evil.

End of Empire

The American empire is unraveling. Like every other, it has a long period of decline ahead of it – empires do not end suddenly, and there’s seldom an event you can point to and say “this is where it ended.” The sack of Rome came at the end of centuries of economic, cultural, military and population decline. I’m sticking to examples reasonably familiar to other US readers, but the same is true of classical Greece, ancient Egypt, the Persian empire, various Chinese kingdoms, the Holy Roman Empire… it is a common pattern. Empires establish themselves, grown in power, pump wealth from their surrounding regions to enrich the heartland, then falter when there’s no more wealth to be sucked up. When Britain first conquered the Indian subcontinent, it was the richest region on earth – by the time the British empire fell, India was one of the poorest. That wealth didn’t just evaporate – it was spent by Britain maintaining the world’s largest navy.

The United States’ fall is unlikely to be a single event you can point to and say “there.” It’s already started – for the past fourty years, the US standard of living for the bottom 80% has been in decline. We can no longer afford things that used to be normal – a house and family on one working-class wage, a pension, a debt-free retirement.

End of Abundance

In part, this is due to losing our grip on the world economy, bankrupting ourselves with military adventurism and being the biggest kid in the block with our hand in every pot. But another part of it is the end of a second source of wealth, unmatched in human history: oil. It is not a coincidence that the US, once the largest producer of oil in the world, in turn came to rule that world. World War II was not won an the back of rightousness, whatever good causes we may have had – it was won on virtually limitless supplies of petroleum. Oil was the 20th century’s key to power, and boy did we ever turn that key.

It’s coming to an end now. Conventional oil has peaked already, though the shortfall has been made good for a little while by unconventional energy. But the key here is EROI – Energy return on investment. The amount of oil in tar sands sounds impressive, until you calculate that what portion of that oil is going to have to be burned to extract the rest. Not just running the pumps, mind you – mining the steel to make the equipment, transporting water and people, refining the tar, using natural gas to process it into something resembling gasoline or diesel. It’s dismal.

Conventional oil used to have EROIs in the 100s – you could get hundreds of barrels of oil out of the ground for every one you burned. Nowadays we’re down to 5 – pulling oil from beneath miles of arctic ocean is not as easy as it is drilling a hundred yards down in Oklahoma. Tar sands have abysmal numbers. barrels of oil drawn out of the ground isn’t the only measure that matters. How much of the energy generated goes right back to work without every leaving the energy sector? A growing amount – and that decrease in available oil is bleeding the economy of the industrial world dry.

Alternative Energy

Enter all the usual suspects: solar, wind, nuclear, tidal power, biofuels. There’s only one thing they all have in common: none of them are economical. No nation on earth has a nuclear program without massive government subsidies. Solar companies drop like flies as soon as governments stop propping them up with taxpayer generosity. We’ve been trying to make solar work for fourty years, but it simply doesn’t work on an industrial scale. Rooftop solar water heaters are great. Endless acres of mirrors and glass that has to be kept clean in the Nevada desert isn’t.

It’s such a common party line that renewable energy will save us that questioning it feels slightly sacrilegious – but again it’s a matter of ROI. It’s negative for solar and wind on an industrial scale.

End of Industry

It’s the last two words that are key: industrial scale. Wind, water and solar work great locally, on small scales, meeting individual human needs. What they absolutely cannot do is substitute for black gold.Instead of scrabbling desperately to maintain our current lifestyles, built to run off one insanely abundant energy source, it’s time to start looking at what we can change to make do. Making do works suprisingly well – people have been doing it for the vast majority of human history – but it’s such a foreign concept to most of us who’ve spent our lives living in the heart of the oil-powered machines that are modern cities and towns.We are facing the end of industrial civilization. This is not an apocalyptic event. Just as much as we’re not going to all be saved by solar, we’re also not all going to become cavemen. There is a massive middle ground – and in fact there’s very little reason to call the end of the age of oil a step backwards. It’s a matter of using what we have differently. Trains are wonderful things, and so are your feet – when cities are designed for them, rather than every individual lugging 2000lbs of steel and plastic around with them everywhere they go.Conclusion

None of this is going to happen overnight. You won’t wake up one day and find the electrical grid gone. But it is going to happen – over the course of years and decades, in small little steps and big ones.

You also won’t see suggestions from me on how to fix this. That’s sort of the point – it can’t be fixed, it’s already happening. The question is how to deal with it. Perhaps someday I’ll make a post with some opinions on that, but I’ve written quite enough for tonight already. Hope you all are having a wonderful evening, and if you’d like to read more on the subject by someone who’s made it his life’s work to educate, I’d highly recommend the Archdruid Report. In particular, you might enjoy his current serial fiction piece (parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, up through 14 and currently ongoing), exploring why there’s a million miles difference between the end of industrial civilization and the end of human life.


    • No one in particular - 2016-02-17

    Interesting thoughts! Thanks for sharing, Blue.

    I haven’t looked deeply into the numbers, but I live in a part of the world where energy from the grid is produced mainly by nuclear and hydroelectric (we have wind farms, but they don’t contribute all that much). There are few downsides to hydroelectric: stick a turbine under a waterfall and get electricity without fuss. But there aren’t enough waterfalls in the world to provide for all of our power needs.

    I hold out hope for a nuclear renaissance to keep the lights on. A great deal of the expense of nuclear power plants comes from the fact that each one is basically hand-crafted. There has never been a high enough demand for them to be mass produced cheaply. So, nuclear’s ROI might increase if there’s high enough demand for them.

    • Hydroelectric is the one exception to all the above: it’s cheap, efficient, reliable and sustainable. The trouble is that there isn’t enough to run our modern society – it’s a trivial portion of a percent.

    • Dj Grafiti - 2016-02-18


    • Joe - 2016-02-18

    Like rome, America has overextended itself. An unnescessarily vast amount of our budget goes into our military; more than the next 12 countries combined, 11 of whom are allied to us. Its simply not economical to have that many bases in that many countries. Its a logistical nightmare and ridiculously expensive. Even moreso when we rely on contractors for much of our logistics, which charge as much as they can get away with.

    Its wasteful, but its not the only issue.

    The primary problem is a negative cash flow. Money is going out, but not enough is returning as taxes. Like rome, a lot of this has to do with the aristocracy of our nation, that is to say, the 1%, not paying their fair share of taxes. Our standard of living is slipping because we’ve let inflation run rampant while wages stay stagnant, everyone is one hospital visit away from bankrupcy. The trend of money flowing up needs to be reversed to some degree or we will slip back to a developing nation standard of living.

    Our cities are poorly designed, resulting in a need for more civil personell(fire, police, etc) to cover the population over a vast area, which raises taxes due to innefficiency. As a result, our mass transit sucks, because it can only ever hope to work well for the very middle of major cities, and in turn, this facilitates having a car as more or less mandatory, and contributes to hyperinflated pricing for housing in cities.

    Our problems are legion. Our means to fix them are many, but those who benefit from the status quo hold the power, and so nothing is going to change before a collapse.

      • danget - 2016-02-18

      It is interesting to note that I had my class on economics a while back and it went something like this. Inflation is a sign that an economy is failing. That was more or less rule 1 for the class. My teacher then informed us that several economists and the US government want inflation, like 2% a year or something stupid. The reason that give as to why they want this to happen is that it will motivate people to earn more money. We then went on to discuss as a class why this was stupid. We took the whole period naming various problems with this and the economy in general.

    • Eidalac - 2016-02-18

    Interesting. Sure not what I was expecting to see, LOL.

    Accurate enough, all in all. Even nuclear power has it’s fuel based limitations and is, ultimately, just a glorified steam pump. Fusion may be viable, but by the time we have the capability, we may not have enough other sources to effective ‘kick start’ enough reactors to make a difference.

    The only ‘real’ means of continuing hydrocarbon fuel would be if we could access the methane lakes on some of the outer planet’s moon – but it’s unlikely that would ever be cost effective even if we had the means to do so.

    I can certainly see the rise of city-state coalitions as a more resource efficient replacement of large nations, but it’s still hard to say how things will play out.

    I just hope we can avoid any form of WWIII/Global Resource Wars – they are nice for fictional world building, but not the kind of thing I would wish on humanity in reality.

    • Dancing Shadow - 2016-02-18

    Well about the energy:

    You are probably right. Burning fossile fuel isn’t going to cut it much longer.

    About solar and wind energy: The theoreticle could power quite a lot, but there is one giant problem: Our batteries suck. You never know how much wind or sun are available, so you have to keep other reactors as a reserve. If we had batteries with a lot more capacity wind and solar energy would be a lot more viable.

    And then there is nuclear power.
    Honestly, the current nuclear reactors sitting in our countries are as modern as a 1900 steamcar.
    Everything else is said on this page

    • DarthJake - 2016-02-19

    Sad, but all too true.

    Good Post Blue

    • Guancyto - 2016-02-19

    I’ve read the Archdruid before, he’s well-read but he has a bad case of seeing what he’s wanted to see, and maybe taking his ideas on technological progress from people telling him stuff? We are much, -much- better at everything he talks about than he gives us credit, particularly when it comes to power. Nuclear, solar, wind, and natural gas, in particular.

    The best large-scale battery system we’ve found is pumped hydroelectric power (that is, use peak solar power to pump water into ye lake, open the hydro dam when you actually need the power output). It sounds silly but when properly designed it’s actually insanely efficient. Not good for the environment, but that’s a different matter. Solar is springing up all over the place (panels are currently as expensive to manufacture as drywall), and big energy firms are moving in at record pace to kick over smaller solar energy companies and capture regulations re: rooftop solar because it pretty genuinely is the next big thing.

    The honeymoon is over on fracking but the shale revolution is also real, and a substantial part of why energy prices are so cheap right now. Again, goddamn terrible for the environment, but incredibly effective. I met the president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association (a big lobbying group; he owns two fracking wells and gave a presentation to my department). The statistics and technical information provided were actually really interesting, but I found him a pretty odious and short-sighted individual. It’s goddamn cowboys who are happy to waste resources to make money faster that are going to kill us energy-wise, not actual lack of resources to extract.

    The Iron Age did not end for lack of iron.

    (Now the Bronze Age, that -totally- ended for lack of bronze, and violently so.)

    As for the American Empire… that may well be coming to a close, but the economic well-being of its citizens isn’t really a good indicator of that? I mean, at the height of the British Empire, your average citizen of the UK wasn’t particularly better off for the vast collection of colonies, protectorates and territories they had. Heck, the British government didn’t particularly benefit – empires are -expensive-. A select group of well-connected businessmen and politicians, though? Oh my yes. How little has changed.

    • :waves at Guancyto:



      BlueWinds: :P
      Guancyto: :O
      BlueWinds: Did I ever tell you I was big into solar power just after college? Co-founded a company in New Mexico to start a solar plant. We were going to take advantage of (at the time) the world’s most generous tax-break for renewable energy companies (NM was trying reaaaaaaly hard to kickstart its renewable energy economy).
      Guancyto: I don’t believe you did!
      Guancyto: How’d that go?
      BlueWinds: Trouble was, even with $0.15 per kw/h in subsidy / tax discount, it was barely viable, and even then only with the assumption of stable and rising electricity prices.
      BlueWinds: We scrapped the company, but a bunch of others didn’t – turns out even doubling the price of electricity, at government largess, wasn’t enough to make Solar viable on a large scale in New Mexico.
      Guancyto: Hmm. How long ago was this?
      BlueWinds: Six years later, the government stopped shoveling money down the hole, a bunch of the under-construction solar plants were abandoned or bought for pennies on the dollar by existing utilities, and NM still has no solar to speak of. What little there is is kept alive by – again – tax breaks and PR by the big companies to say they’re doing their part.
      BlueWinds: A few years. I was looking at things in 2009-2010, so I guess it wasn’t quite six years later.
      Guancyto: Hmm, even so
      Guancyto: It is possible that the people at my department and the sources they cite are hilariously optimistic about solar energy!
      BlueWinds: But yeah, if you look behind the shiny headlines and the numbers which look oh-so-good on paper, you see the same story with everything except hydroelectric. Hydroelectric’s great.
      Guancyto: Mm. I have heard that in Australia, the coal lobby is doing its best to kill the wind lobby because wind beats coal on price there now.
      Guancyto: But, well, that is Australia.
      BlueWinds: Spain – best place for solar in Europe – tried the same thing, and then went bankrupt. ^^;; German’s a big success story – but again behind the 25% of electricity generation from Solar, you see government subsidies and price fixing (they’ve actually pegged the price of electricity in the country up, so that solar can compete).
      BlueWinds: Yeah, there are places where all this stuff works – just not on a scale to power our current civilization. Windmills are great at powering houses, not so great at cars and factories and mines.
      Guancyto: Well, Spain had a lot of problems besides just that
      BlueWinds: Yeah, not laying that on the feet of solar. :P
      Guancyto: The Euro is sort of eating them alive
      BlueWinds: They went bankrupt for other reasons, and it just happened to kill solar when there wasn’t money to prop it up anymore.
      Guancyto: Hmmmm.
      BlueWinds: Didn’t mean to imply it killed Spain. :P
      Guancyto: Yeah I see what you’re saying.
      BlueWinds: Solar water heaters? A++.
      Guancyto: I will say that the place where Archdruid really has it right and doesn’t realize it is in petroleum-based fertilizers
      Guancyto: If those get scarce in 15-20 years, we really are gonna have a bad time.
      BlueWinds: Cuts average residential energy usage by, like, 70%.
      BlueWinds: Mhm.
      Guancyto: I guess the juxtaposition of iron and bronze endings was sort of intentional – the iron age ended because of technological progress, the bronze age ended and basically every city we know of was burned to the ground in that period and civilization more or less went down in flames.
      Guancyto: (Probably not actually for lack of bronze but the trade routes which were necessary for its manufacture and I am both rambling and quibbling at the same time.)
      BlueWinds: Mhm. I don’t think we need to “retreat” to an earlier technology – that’s the silly idea that progress is a line – but I do think we need to radically change things.
      Guancyto: Well you’re right about that.
      BlueWinds: Or to be more specific, I think things will radically change, and we could make the transition a lot nicer for ourselves with a few steps now, rather than having every step wrenched out of us kicking and screaming.
      Guancyto: Economic arguments against alternative energy are the most relevant ones right now but a steadily decreasing ROI on petroleum is an argument for them, not against
      Guancyto: I dunno, one of my metrics for “is this gonna be a big thing” is “is big business trying to ruin it or assimilate it”
      BlueWinds: Well, depends on how much of an economy you think you can have on low EROI.
      Guancyto: And if the answer is “assimilate” then maybe we’re on to something.
      BlueWinds: It’s an argument that they’re useful for something, but not an argument that industrial society can be maintained.
      Guancyto: Fair!
      BlueWinds: Every percent EROI drops is a percent of the economy – not just money, but real workers, material wealth – that has to be removed from whatever other use it was put to.
      Guancyto: You’re not wrong
      Guancyto: Energy is a bad place to have inefficiency like that too, on account of being the engine that drives literally everything else.
      BlueWinds: Anyway, I don’t want to beat a dead horse, just thought I’d respond here rather than a comment on the blog. :)
      Guancyto: Yes!
      Guancyto: No worries.
      BlueWinds: Can I post a transcript of this conversation? With or without Guancito as one of the participants?
      Guancyto: If you like?
      BlueWinds: It’s sort of been an excuse to type out a bunch of stuff that didn’t really fit into the original post.
      Guancyto: Okay!
      BlueWinds: I really am not going to make more political posts on that blog, though, it’s not what it’s about. *^^*

    • RedGales - 2016-02-21

    I can’t help but notice you didn’t mention anything about the whole economic collapse potential thanks to the fear a lot of people have over the whole automation thing. I dunno if it really impacts your views, but I’m just saying I noticed the absence.

    As for alternative energy, Nikola Tesla had some ideas on that. One of his goals was free, limitless energy worldwide. However, he wasn’t exactly a rich man, and his altruistic ideals weren’t gonna make investors the profits they were hoping for, so yeah. We all know how that went down. Theoretically though, the whole energy issue of today might not even exist, had Tesla been able to succeed.

    It’s no coincidence at all that you would compare America as an empire today to the ones in ancient times. We’re no different, only time and technology is. The Byzantine Empire tore itself apart thanks to treachery, deceit, etc. all from within. I see my country tearing itself apart because we’re too busy bickering over political parties instead of trying to work together to better the nation as a whole. This is where I’d go into a rant about Capitalism being a source of why we’re being left in the dust due to greed, but I’m just gonna leave it at that statement right there.

    The world today is the same as it ever was. Different nations in a different time with different technological advancements hold sovereignty over different areas of the world, but human nature is the same today as it was back then. We still have good and bad, we still have bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, corrupt politicians, class warfare, etc. The only difference is how it’s waged and how it’s handled, but human society is the same as it always was and always will be, because human nature is like war…

    And war… War never changes…

      • hooma - 2016-02-27

      oh come on… not again that tesla fiction.. yes he was brilliant. yes had certain goals. but his main point of science was not the generating of energy. it was the transmission!!!!!!!!!

      but you are right. usa is like every other empire. its also brutal like the ones before it and not like blue declines!

    • Hulk - 2016-02-22

    so we gonna have a porn game involving nuclear reactor or somtn ?

      • Guancyto - 2016-02-25

      Hell, I’d play Love Fusion: Sexy Nuclear Engineering!, but I don’t think many other people would.

      I mean, the sheer number of regulations you need to slog through to have sex in the cleaning closet alone…

      Wait no! I’ve got it.

      In the strange fictionworld, it’s hypothesized that the key to sustainable fusion (and solving the energy crisis) is actually love, so it has to be created and replicated in a controlled environment. Cue incredibly awkward dating sim about trying to make that happen. The golden ending (harem ending?) is saving the world.

    • Wanderer - 2016-02-24

    If you’re right, at least in theory, it should be possible for someone to buy huge amounts of oil (or oil futures) and sell it years or decades later and make immense profits. ‘Cause by then it’ll be really scarce and the price will be really high. Right? Is anyone doing that? If not, is there a particular reason they’re not?

    • hooma - 2016-02-27


    i got the impression you dont like such themes, because you did not reply to my “hidden agenda” request.

    • Novus - 2016-02-27

    Oh boy. I hate it when I end up playing devil’s advocate, but in this case I feel it’s justified. Make no mistake, while i’m a citizen of the U.S.(and not as well off as you, not even close from what I’ve gathered), I’m not it’s biggest fan. I have little to no patriotism, and don’t want to. So, when >I< of all people feel the need to poke at the blatant fallacies in its defense…that means something.

    American empire – Only not really

    America was once in the empire building game, but that shifted in the early 1900s, ironically, about the time it got truly powerful. Instead it did something almost new, shifting to the world-police role that it's been derided for. Is it the most powerful INFLUENCE on the planet? Yes, for now. But it's largely constrained itself to politics and economic control, sheltering as often as it harms, and generally not expanding like a proper empire would.

    In response to the pure resource question, that statistic of 5% vs 25% is almost meaningless. Why? Because the U.S. no longer PRODUCES that material. Meaning that ultimate control has shifted elsewhere, giving other parts of the world(like China) a power boost.

    For the military invasions. Your overlooking that in many cases the U.S. is actually the strongman of the United Nations, not acting solo. Many of it's military campaigns are done as part of a U.N. task group, the legitimately elected WORLD government enforcing worldwide treaty, human rights, and law. Only in the last decade and a half has this altered, with the "war on terror." Which brings another issue…

    Your dead, flat out, completely and utterly, wrong about whose been getting the short end of the stick. Does the U.S. do things for moral reasons? No, not always. HOWEVER, the often overlooked aspect of the wars and invasions you list. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria for example. Are the massive, MASSIVE, flat out genocidal sorts of massive, regimes that are removed during these campaigns. There is a REASON a GOOD reason, why very few of the really important voices say much against such moves. France did, with Iraq, only because it was later found to have been selling them weapons.

    Additionally, do to most information coming through tainted media sources, most people don't realize that the majority of even those campaigns were not single-government affairs. The United Kingdom, Austraila, and Poland also hit Iraq in 2003, and something like 36 countries overall were involved…WITH the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Despite it's detractors…it actually wasn't a U.S. war. Similarly the action is Syria is not a U.S. war. Afghanistan is, but even there others have involved themselves heavily.

    The simply truth is, that the "empire" you're looking for? Is actually the World Government attempting to do haphazardly fulfill its mandate. Going back to those raw numbers? EIGHTY PERCENT of the world's resources are used by the top 16 wealthiest countries…. The U.S. only holds the highest at 25% due to it being the largest population of those countries.

    As for the end of American influence…meh. You're mostly right, but for all the wrong reasons. Oil was a big deal…WAS. To be honest, it's fading, and now because we're running out. Access to new tech to unlock oil sands and such has actually driven oil price DOWN. ALOT DOWN. So much so that some places are actually shutting down pumps.

    More, your information on Alternatives is out-of-date. Recent developments(that haven't hit mass market yet) have turned solar into something potentially viable again. Developments in Fusion could see practical nuclear plants inside twenty years, replacing impractical fission piles that just aren't worth their risk. Oh, and by the way? U.S. Power is provided by COAL not OIL. Coal is almost 40%, Nuclear another 20%, Natural Gas 27%…petroleum is only 1%. Petroleum is only really useful for mobile platforms and plastics. And the mobile platforms are slowly shifting to electric, which has finally been made somewhat practical.

    Also…most of our issues CAN be fixed, and people are actually fixing them. Not that the media will tell you that. They only really report the BAD. You need to dig into science journals, and attend or watch video of major international conferences to get a feel for what the state of the future actually is. The U.S. will fall apart, that much is certain, all such powers do, but it's more likely to be from falling education standards and idiotic attempts to equalized everything. Idiots wanting a free ride and artificially incited racial and gender tensions that only exist in rioters heads. Attempting to appease the loudest voices, instead of the majority, this will destroy us. In time. But not a lack of "black gold."

      • Novus - 2016-02-27

      andddddd…should have proof read that. Horrible errors(grammatical not data). In my defence it’s almost 5 am >_>.

    • nope - 2016-02-29

    dude, stick to coding

    you clearly aren’t mentally equipped to do science

    • Love you too, dear. <3

    • BM15 - 2016-03-02

    I honestly think the more likely scenario is that, in the next 20-40 years, the states will fragment apart into smaller nation-states. Geographically close, like-minded states will form their own new countries with governments that are more dynamic and better represent their populations. A career politician President from California probably doesn’t represent a Texan rancher or Cuban-American Floridian businesswoman as well as someone from their region would.

    This was talked about a lot in the 1970s and honestly, I think those political authors were right… it’s just the USA has stubbornly stuck together in spite of a number of insanely close presidential elections.

    Of course, all this will be irrelevant if some idiot starts WWIII and China’s on the opposite team of the USA. The debt owed to China is scratched right off the books and the USA has to get it’s industry back up and running. There is nothing like a massive resource war to spur innovation. Look at what tech was around in 1939 and what was around in 1945 and how much more efficient things were. Nothing, absolutely nothing, spurs change, innovation and self-preservation behavior quite like a resource war to the death.

    Just hope some massive tool doesn’t push the button because poof, it’s all beyond irrelevant.

      • Novus - 2016-03-02

      Bah, China will never directly attack the USA(unless some idiot attacks them first, or levies economic sanctions, I could see Trump doing that with his ham-handed policies, to be honest). Their economy would collapse if they did, we’re by far their biggest client after all. They’d have nowhere to send all the rubber duckies, cheap electronics, and low quality sex toys.

    • AdderTude - 2016-03-27

    It’s a summary of Dinesh D’Souza’s debunking of the “evil imperialism” narrative in his documentary “America, Imagine the World Without Her”. Many of the sins that the Left is eager to point out with our country can be traced to other, more brutal regimes, and yet we still are handed the blame (e.g. American slavery during the colonial period, despite history proving that slavery has gone back to ancient times; capitalism “destroying” the American Dream, despite historical evidence that capitalism has helped revitalize economies of countries either ravaged by war [which has been the case since WWII, most notably Germany] or left destitute under socialist dictators). The shaming of America is the strategy of the Left to smear the historical image of the United States in order to “fundamentally change” our society.

    “America, Imagine the World Without Her” holds a CinemaScore of A+ and is praised by critics.

    • Would it surprise you to know that I don’t identify as a liberal (in the American sense of the word), and I too think Obama has been one of the worst presidents in history?

      Anyway, I don’t like propaganda in any form. Just in case anyone was wondering, I’ll quote a user review:

      “Arguments are composed of equal parts strawman attacking and heavily edited interviews… Evokes cheap imagery to instill a nationalistic fervor while blaming virtually every problem in modern America on Obama. But first, he must perform a series of mental gymnastics to explain why America’s treatment of slaves, native Americans, and corporatism aren’t all that bad because ‘everyone else used to do it, too.’”

Comments are closed.