How The US Empire Will Collapse According To Science

| Educate!

Above Photo: From rawstory.com

Sociologist who predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11 attacks warns that American global power will collapse under Donald Trump.

Johan Galtung, a Norwegian professor at the University of Hawaii and Transcend Peace University, first predicted in 2000 that the “U.S. empire” would wither away within 25 years, but he moved up that forecast by five years with the election of President George W. Bush, reported Motherboard.

Now, nearly 17 years later, Galtung predicts that decline could come even quicker under a Trump administration.

“He blunts contradictions with Russia, possibly with China, and seems to do also with North Korea,” Galtung said. “But he sharpens contradictions inside the USA.”

Galtung’s biographer credits the sociologist and mathematician with correctly predicting the 1978 Iranian revolution; China’s Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989; the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989; the economic crises of 1987, 2008 and 2011; and the 9/11 attacks.

His predictions are based on a model comparing the rise and fall of 10 historical empires, and decades ago Galtung developed a theory of decline based on “synchronizing and mutually reinforcing contradictions.”

For example, Galtung’s model identified five key structural contradictions in Soviet society that he predicted would lead to its fragmentation unless the U.S.S.R. completely transformed itself.

Galtung predicted the tensions between the repressed Soviet working class and the wealthier “bourgeoisie” with nothing to buy would lead to economic stagnation, and those economic forces combined with the push for more freedom of expression, autonomy and freedom of movement would — eventually did — pull down the Soviet Union.

He predicted in his 2009 book, “The Fall of the American Empire — and then What?” that the U.S. was plagued by 15 internal contradictions that would end its global power by 2020, and Galtung warned that phase of the decline would usher in a period of reactionary fascism.

American fascism would spring from its capacity for global violence, a vision of exceptionalism, a belief in an inevitable and final war between good and evil, the cult of a strong state leading that battle, and a cult of the “strong leader.”

Galtung said all of those elements presented themselves during the Bush era, but he fears fascist tendencies could sharpen under Trump as those cultists lash out in disbelief at the loss of American power.

The sociologist identified unsustainable economic, social, military and political contradictions that would eventually topple the U.S. as a world power.

Overproduction relative to demand, unemployment and the increasing costs of climate change would weaken the U.S. economy, according to his model.

Galtung also predicted that rising tensions between the U.S., NATO and its military allies, coupled with the increasing economic costs of war and the political conflicts between the U.S., United Nations and the European Union, would also diminish American power.

“The collapse has two faces,” Galtung said. “Other countries refuse to be ‘good allies: and the USA has to do the killing themselves, by bombing from high altitudes, drones steered by computer from an office, Special Forces killing all over the place. Both are happening today, except for Northern Europe, which supports these wars, for now. That will probably not continue beyond 2020, so I stand by that deadline.”

Rising tensions between America’s Judeo-Christian majority and Islam and other religious minorities created cultural contradictions, which are further sharpened by social contradictions between the so-called American dream and the reality that fewer Americans can achieve prosperity through hard work.

The decline of the U.S. as a global power would probably rip apart its domestic cohesion, Galtung said, which could potentially reshape American borders.

“As a trans-border structure the collapse I am thinking of is global, not domestic,” Galtung said. “But it may have domestic repercussion, like white supremacists or even minorities like Hawaiians, Inuits, indigenous Americans and black Americans doing the same, maybe arguing for the United States as community, confederation rather than a ‘union.’”

That breakup could potentially bring a revitalization of the American republic, Galtung said — if Trump makes a surprising shift in his persona and policies.

“If he manages to apologize deeply to all the groups he has insulted and turn foreign policy from U.S. interventions — soon 250 after Jefferson in Libya 1801 — and not use wars (killing more than 20 million in 37 countries after 1945): A major revitalization!” Galtung said. “Certainly making ‘America Great Again.’ We’ll see.”

 

  • DHFabian

    Well, yes. I think a good many of us began seeing the collapse as far back as the 1980s. The US has stayed on a course that was first set by Reagan. The only unknown is whether the end will be via economic collapse or military attack.

    Look back. The US shut down/shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s, creating a huge surplus of job-ready people who are desperate for any job at any wage. Unions were either ended or leashed, and the fact is that today’s workers have no power. Virtually any worker can be replaced by morning. In the 1980s, the right wing took control of MSM, “winnowing out” what they considered to be “left-leaning,” the mass media mergers/news consolidation, etc. In the 1990s, we saw the influence of the Clinton right wing over the media marketed to liberals (a long story in itself). Meanwhile, the US engaged in the longest, most expensive war in US history. We’re drained out militarily and economically, and no longer have the means (the money or jobs) to rebuild.

    Since the end of WWll, the US has earned the distrust/rage of much of the world. Meanwhile, Americans have been deeply divided, pitted against each other by class, race, and ideology. While the right wing worked at building up their base, the left worked on dividing theirs (middle class vs. poor, people of color vs. white). Divide, subdivide, conquer. And now there’s Trump, and everything Trump represents was inevitable.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    Galtung’s biographer is the source for past predictive successes? Stories source like this make me suspicious. What precisely did Galtung predict? How did he word those predictions?

    He’s the founder of TRANSCEND Internation? He’s professor at professor at the University of Hawaii and Transcend Peace University? He speaks at think tanks like the Brookings Institute? He was born into the Norwegian ruling elite, has the equivalent of a PhD in Sociology? Yet he makes predictions without deep examination of the functions of the capitalist ruling elite?

    In other words, he sounds to me like a very, very elaborate, and highly educated bullshitter with a paid personal biographer.

    Search him on the Internet and make up your own mind. I’m open to being argued toward modification of my views.

  • Jahar Saddles

    From the perspective of a Native American and heir to two treaties that the USA abrogated in 1885. I have asked those who repeat the phrase “Make America Great Again”, just exactly WHEN was it that ‘America was great in the first place?’—-The USA has been nothing more than a series of oligarchies, each with their own agendas shifting control back and forth from the very day the founders wrote their famous words. The words that begin with deception in their intent; “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal”. History reveals that they were not referring to the Native Americans who, when those men wrote those words; they were practicing genocide and total war against, including germ warfare. They were not referring to the slaves they made vast fortunes from their labor as well as the slave trade itself. They were not referring to the children they produced with their slaves whom they most often sold as slaves. They were not speaking of the indentured servants they all had, who could be cast into slave status with courts that were controlled by them, for any of several reasons. They were referring to themselves being equal to “royalty” and they wanted to be able to exercise that same power.
    Since 1885 the USA has been in illegal possession of more than 60% of their geographic territory as a result of violating their own constitution’s “Article 6; All Treaties are Supreme Law”, and the majority of the treaties they have signed since 1885 they have also abrogated. The world knows from the USA’s history which they ‘witnessed’ since the early twentieth century, that the USA cannot be trusted in even the least consideration of respect and they are not worthy of cooperation because the USA does not keep its treaties; and they rightfully do not trust the USA.
    The only thing that has actually changed in all of this is the ‘face of the oligarchy’. All of this while the USA has had at least one war for each generation, with three for the last generation, and they have actually only won two of those. Their revolution and WWII and the “win” in 1945 made the USA the only nation to use nuclear weapons, and twice, AND in both instances upon known civilian targets. They have experienced TWO defeats at the hand of China—where they lost in Korea and later in Vietnam and they still can’t win any of their illegal wars of aggression and all the while have rightfully given the entire planet all of the necessary information they need to fear and loath the USA——-Indeed; “If the USA were any other criminal nation the ‘Americans’ would invade the USA, to keep the world safe”.
    So the question of ‘exactly WHEN was the USA great’; has no answer.
    The USA has only been a great nation in its own imagination and has never lived up to it promise and cannot be expected to any time soon.

  • Josh

    “The equivalent of a PhD in Sociology” sounds rather accredited to me. Thanks for reminding us all how skepticism is commesurate to critical thought, not that the article was outlandish, but it’s important to recognize the attributes of speculation, falsifiability, and fact.