, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 Emperor Obama

If I have played my part well, clap your hands, and dismiss me with applause from the Stage. – Augustus Deathbed Request


Behind the hypocrisy of stagecraft, Augustus along with his American contemporary, Barrack Obama, was a narcissistic Dictator impersonating a Constitutionalist.

It is often agreed among historians that the unofficial dictator, brought about a Pax Romana. Being that Augustus was conscious that his accomplishments thus indicated on his deathbed ‘Behold, I found Rome of clay, and leave her to you of marble’. He was such a consummate actor that he actually invited history to judge him as being a ‘Great Man’ of historical significance. According to Obama supporters, being the first African-American to have captured the US Presidency alone assured his historical significance, however they go further to point out the near-catastrophic state of affairs, which awaited the President-Elect upon entering office, which supports the notion, that Obama is also a ‘Great Man’ of Destiny.

I therefore argue that Augustus’ claim to greatness is not accurate, as shortly after his reign, Rome descended into such turmoil that it never recovered. It was his ingenious decisions and actions that indirectly led to his decedents destroying Rome. Had he truly taken up the mantle of Republican Reformer, perhaps the Republican state would have been maintained. The ‘Augustan Peace’ was in reality, a temporary plan that functioned as a bulwark against the inevitable end of the Roman Empire. Its architecture disintegrated along with the Fall of the Republic and the arrival of the Julio-Claudians. Similarly during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, by repeatedly promoting his expertise in Constitutional Law, Obama had positioned himself as a Champion of Republican Reform also.

It would seem that both world leaders are masters of stagecraft. Augustus and Obama were able to present a façade of Republican governance that cloaked their Imperial ambitions. Being that their governance are counterfeit, neither one of them serves the Republican System of Government that their lands were founded on. But just as Augustus’ hypocrisy would ultimately serve the insidious dynasty of the Julio-Claudians, Obama’s deception seems to serve the devious Clinton-Bush Family Dynasties of American politics.

Judas Kisses from Augustus and Obama

Augustus was a virtuoso of political statecraft. In order to attain power to carry out his agenda, although being the heir to Caesar the Dictatorial King, he presented himself as the heir to Cicero the Constitutional Republican. On the grand stage of political theatre, Augustus was a Dictator acting as a Republican. The US-equivalent of this artful disinformation tactics can be seen in that Obama had presented himself as the product of the Kennedy Legacy, but it is safe to say that the 44th President of the United States is in fact a disciple the Neoconservatism of George W. Bush.

In the same way Kings over the course of history were sensitive to their ancestors who had overstretched themselves and met with an untimely death, Augustus had learnt not to make the same mistake Caesar had. He became the consummate actor, successfully championing artificial Republicanism. He achieved this by superficially adopting the persona of Cicero. Cicero was obsessed by the vision of a Roman Republic, based on the ‘union of good men’.[1] He argued that in governance, personal ambitions were to be set aside, and men of high virtue would guarantee the stability of the senate’s principate.[2] It was this exact temperament that Augustus chose to emulate and display.

As part of the counterfeit, Augustus set limits to his power, accepted few honours, stating the he wanted to be nothing more than a First Citizen. Later during his rule, there was a universal movement to confer the title of ‘Father of His Country’. He responded emotionally saying that he already attained his highest ambition, that there nothing else to wish for. This was hypocritical, as Cassius Dio had already recognized, that Rome was essentially a Monarchy.[3] Although Augustus saw to the revival of certain Republican institutions the change made no difference to the source and facts of power.[4] He succeeded in reconciling the new reality of the monarchy with the old one of the Republic.[5] Augustus defeated the Republic thoroughly and definitively by ‘restoring’ it in his own image that suited the changing political, social, and strategic landscape.[6] Behind the Republican mask lay an imperious Augustus. This shows that Augustus had great contextual intelligence, as he possessed the ability to change roles to suit the political, social and strategic landscape.

During the end of the Bush Presidency of 2007, due to constant scandals and blatant abuse of power such as; the invasion of Iraq based on the lies of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction, the constant changing of reasons to justify occupation such as wanting to bring down Saddam Hussein as he was ‘a bad man’ and to bring democracy to the people of Iraq, enacting the so-called Patriot Act, the inability to locate Bin Laden, allowing mass surveillance by the NSA without a warrant and the authorization of torture under the rebranding of ‘enhanced interrogation technique, the flawed response of his Administration during the natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina which destroyed the predominately Black community of New Orleans, beginnings of what would become the 2008 Global Economic Crisis with the late-2001 Recession, the American people longed for a return to some form of fairness and constitutionalism.[7] It is my assertion that Obama was sensitive to the craving of the American people for a ‘Saviour’ to repair their mortally wounded pride and Nation, he became a consummate actor and crafted the image of championing the restoration of American beliefs and traditions, while representing progressivism and the fulfilment of Martin Luther King’s Dream, being the first-ever Black President of the United States. Politically speaking, his image was of the persona of President John F Kennedy along with MKL being honoured.

When Obama ascended to the US Presidency, it was a period of times which carried with it unprecedented euphoria. But unlike Augustus, he was more than willing to accept the honour of the Nobel Peace Price shortly after just becoming President. And just as the movement to bestow the title of ‘Father of His Country’, there has been reports of Americans flying altered American Flags with Obama’s face in the place with the Stars were to be. There is also an attempt to repeal the twenty-second amendment that prohibits a US President from serving more than two terms. Although in fairness there have been attempts to do so before Obama’s Presidency, there has been much more frequent attempts in recent times.

Pax Romana = Pax Augustus?

Augustus’s influence was wide ranging and he implemented many reforms that created an order to the dysfunctional Roman society. In order to give men more experience in the administration of public affairs, he created new officers dealing with the upkeep of public buildings, roads, and aqueducts, the clearing of the Tiber channel, and the distribution of grain to the people.[8] He revived obsolete customs, such as appointing censors, he increased the number of praetors, and requested not one colleague but two whenever he held consulship. Augustus encouraged Senators’ sons to familiarize themselves with public administration. It wasn’t enough to acquire power and wealth: men wish to appear virtuous and to feel virtuous. The new policy embodied a national and a Roman spirit.[9]

This spirit transfigured itself into patriotism within Roman society. He could therefore re-establish trust between the people and their representatives, he honoured the memory of citizens who raised the Roman people from small beginnings to their present glory. He raised statues of them, wearing triumphal dress, proclaiming that it was to remind himself and his successors to never fall below the standard set by those great men of the old.[10] He also revised and created new laws that dealt with extravagance, adultery and unchastity, bribery, and the encouragement of marriage in senatorial and equestrian orders.[11] In times of food shortage he often supplied grain to every man on the citizen list at a very cheap rate, or occasionally even free, and doubled the number of vouchers.[12] Upon the discovery that Roman stock was on decline, Augustus stepped in to save the race, imposing severe restriction upon the freedom of individual owners in liberating their slave.[13] Another reform which was undertaken, under the guise of restoration, none the less perpetuated the policy of Caesar. Under new regulations, access to the Senate might appear to have been made more difficult, being restricted to those in possession of the badge of senatorial birth and certain fortune.[14]  In form, the constitution was less Republican and less ‘democratic’, for eligibility to office was no longer universal, but was determined by possession. Moreover, every class in society from Senators down to Freedmen now enjoyed status and function in the comprehensive, traditional and conservative party that had superseded the spurious Republic of the nobiles.[15] It would seem that Caesar tried to rape Rome and therefore failed, Augustus seduced Rome and therefore succeeded. [16]

I would assert that President Obama, by consciously or unconsciously, has modelled himself after Augustus and therefore has transformed himself from being a Champion of the Constitution to an Imperial President.

The Rise of the Imperial Presidency

It would seem that Obama is proving Liberal-Democrat intellectual Arthur Schlesinger Jr. correct, that the US Constitutional Democratic-Republican Presidency has been transforming into an Imperial Presidency. As he outlined the abuse of executive power, from Washington to Nixon, in his major work The Imperial Presidency, I will be highlighting key instances of all previous Presidents which have acquired unconstitutional power; raging from George Washington to Richard Nixon.

The characteristics of this form of government would be the appointment of personnel who hold personal loyalty and are above outside control, the creation of advisory bodies that surround the presidency which are often in competition with one another but supersede the role of Cabinet, the Senate no longer advise and consent appointments, the office of President attains and relies on powers which exceed the Constitution, this now ‘plebiscitary Presidency’ is now only accountable to the public during the election-cycle or impeachment proceedings rather than Congress, the media[17]. Although to be fair, this has not originated under the Obama Administration as it can be argued that the above-mentioned agencies transforms into a ‘Royal Court’ that surrounds the President. This Court becomes unanswerable and even begins to act independently from the President himself. Schlesinger has cited the Nixon and Reagan Administrations, which had ‘courts’ which had staff, act of exclusively on executive orders, thereby avoiding Congress. Examples can be found during the Watergate Affair and the Iran-Contra Scandal. In actuality, to be fair, Schlesinger’s concept of an Imperial Presidency has not come to fruition under Obama’s Leadership, but can be traced back to George Washington himself.

It was Washington’s proclamation of American neutrality during the war between Britain and France that set off a major debate of US Foreign Policy. This was seen to be an unilateral presidential act, a decree by the President without consultation[18]. Although it can be argued that being the first President ever, every action be considered to be a precedent, I would point out in order to continue being an advocate of democracy, Washington could have taken his decision to Congress for approval.

It was during the American Civil War, President Lincoln granted himself unconstitutional war-powers. He did so by delaying the convocation of Congress lest rigid constitutionalists on the Hill try to stop him from doing what he deemed necessary to save the Union[19]. During this period of ‘executive grace’ saw him enlarge the military and navy beyond their authorized strength, spent public money without congressional approval and most damningly suspended Habeas Corpus. He saw citizens arrested who were allegedly involved in ‘disloyal’ practices. Even during the war, even with Congress in session, Lincoln continued to assert himself independently of Congress that saw the proclamation of Marital Law, arrest people without warrant, seize property, suppress the News media and prevent the free use of the Postal Service[20]. It got to the point of where Secretary of State, William H. Seward bragged to British PM: “My lord, I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the imprisonment of a citizen of Ohio; I can touch a bell again and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York; and no power on earth, expect that of the President, can releaser them. Can the Queen of England do so much?”[21]

This frame of thinking can be seen within the mindset of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Like Lincoln, who found himself under extreme pressures, such as the Great Depression and the Second World War. He had built his New Deal on the basis of authority directly granted by Congress through specific statutes. He wanted to continue to get his powers from Congress, but the urgencies of war led him to turn increasingly to less particularized authority. One of his more notorious claims to unilateral authority came during 1942, when he told Congress that if it did not repeal a farm parity provision in the Emergency Price Control act in the next three weeks, he would refuse to carry it out.[22]  During WWII saw one of the most shameful abuse of power within US history – the removal of Japanese-Americans – was not a unilateral act. It was ratified by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.[23] The Second World War brought to fruition was the establishment on a large scale larger then ever before of a government internal security system, compiling dossiers on government employees[24].

Going further into the 1960’s, under the Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson, saw the sending of 22,000 Troops to the Dominican Republic without Congressional approval and later the same year saw the first combat troops sent to Vietnam. It was the Tonkin Gulf resolution rushed through Congress in an stampede of misinformation and misconception, if not deliberate deception.[25] By doing so Congress had delegated its war-making authority to the President or was it acknowledge his pre-existing authority to do whatever he found necessary[26].

Finally with the arrival of Nixon, we saw a man who publicly exhibited a conventional exterior; underneath it all he had revolutionary dreams. By this time the structural forces, which transferred power to the Presidency, was now reinforced by compulsive internal drives – a belief that the nation was swarming with personal enemies. For a man with this mindset such as Nixon, the imperial Presidency was the perfect shield and refuge. He sensed the historical opportunity to transform the Presidency – to consolidate within the White House all the powers, as against Congress.[27] Nixon displayed more monarchical yearning than any of his processors.

Schlesinger points out that this model can be interrupted almost as a ‘personal dictatorship’ without any toleration for opposition. Any acknowledgment or regard for the public was limited to Election Cycles.[28] This contempt for public opposition manifested itself by investigating peaceful protesters, having the Treasury Department monitor book borrowing from public libraries, having National Security Agency allowed to record private international phone conversations, having the citizenry mail intersected and copied. Even Nixon distrusted his own private outfit and had them wiretapped, bugged, burglarized and even the use of political blackmail which openly shunned the US Constitution. It was only when the Watergate scandal that these scandals were made public.[29] Furthermore, when Nixon was confronted with his subversion, he showed his dictatorial mindset by claiming that the President was not beholden to certain laws. Although he was eventually impeached, the imperial presidency did not change and the conditions that made it possible.[30]

By keeping the imperial structure in place, other Presidents were allowed to further build upon the precent set which further transform the Office of President, which was held in check put the Separation of Powers, into an shared dictatorship between the oligarchic factions of the establishment, namely the Democrats and Republicans. Examples can be found in Henry Ford who saw his first act as US President was to pardon Nixon and kept the dictatorial system in place, which was to do anything it wanted in the name of ‘National Security’.[31] It was under the Carter Administration, which was under the near-complete control of the Trilateral Commission, represented by technocrat Zbigniew Brzezinski, which saw US interference with the Middle East by the covert overthrow of Shah Mohammad Rezā, along with the Blowback of the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and Islamic Fundamentalism taking power in Iran. The Presidency of Ronald Reagan saw the Iran-Contra Affair, which the violation of international law and domestic law, such as bypassing Congress, with officials secretly supplying arms to Iran, supported the criminal Contras. But when exposed, Regan cast the blame on Oliver North and played the part of a fool not knowing what was occurring under his command.[32] Under the Administration of George H W Bush, the United States went to war based on yet another lie. This time it was the concept of Saddam Husien and planned on invading Saudi Arbia, and portrayed him as ‘the New Hitler’.[33] It was Bill Clinton who made true impeachable offenses in leading the international, heavily US funded, organization of NATO to bomb Yugoslavia without the approval of the UN.[34] The lies of the Bush the Younger are well known; from launching the War of Terror based on lies such as Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, to him harbouring Weapons of Mass Destruction along with the stripping US citizens Civil Rights with the draconian Orwellian Patriot Act, which expanded government surveillance and investigative powers, warrantless wiretapping etc.[35]

As I have highlighted, the deterioration of the checks-and-balances that once restrained the Presidency, preventing the Executive Branch from remodelling itself into a Dictatorship, has steadily gained more ground throughout time. Although it is unfair to place the entire breakdown of Constitutionalism onto the shoulders of Obama, I will declare that it has been under the Obama Administration that as produced absolute unprecedented abuse of power never seen before in US history.

Emperor Obama?

As mentioned previously, when Obama had first appeared the US, much like Ancient Rome of the time of the ascension of Augustus, had lost much of its prestige and confidence. Being a Constitutional Law Lecturer, he positioned himself as a Reformer. The American people sought to punish Bush’s Neo-conservative adventurism and Obama’s election victory offered redemption.  Progressives projected their hopes and expectations onto him, conservatives their worst fears.bBoth were mistaken.[36]  As I will now highlight, Obama just like Augustus, has sought a unofficial dictatorial form of Government.

During his campaign, he ran a centrist campaign, advocating safety pragmatic policy initiatives by consisting championing the middle, working and poor classes.[37] He positioned himself to the Left of Hilary Clinton by opposing the Iraq war, but the right of George Bush on Afghanistan, a position his supporters conveniently ignored. And his Senate vote for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gave legal immunity to telecommunications companies complicit in Bush’s wiretapping, should have signed that he might be unwilling to relinquish some of the powers that Bush and Cheney had appropriated.[38]

Another issue that must be taken into consideration was the issue of multiculturalism. According to Tarpley, Obama portrayed himself being a transracial figure, not as a representative of the black community, but as a spokesman for the mystical unity for all peoples.[39]  However the reality is, he is a great Divider, as it is his demagogic claim to being trans-racial, post-racial, a-racial and anti-racist, as any opponent is almost immediately denounced as a racist.[40]

What Obama’s Presidency represents, is any possibility of impeachment for the Bush-Cheney tandem will no longer be persuaded. Due to his utopian rhetoric, which promises a neo-golden age, is infused with the Senator’s personal charisma. What this requires partisan political clashes will be forbidden. The impeachment of Bush-Cheney is a vital necessity for the future survival of representative government in this country, by carrying it out will necessarily be rather acrimonious and partisan business. This might spoil his carefully cultivated apolitical image.[41]

Not only has Obama betrayed his election promise by repealing the Fascist-like Patriot Act, but also it was under his own Administration where he signed into law the National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA). This draconian bill states that American Soil is considered part of the battlefield in the War on Terror and therefore Martial Law is now a distinct possibility. The US military now has the ability to arrest American citizens and disappear them into the tribunal system where suspects /victims detained indefinitely, without knowing what they are charged for and without any access to due process or any protection of the Fourth Amendment.  The fact that Obama’s continuance of George W. Bush legacy, such as torture and illegal detainment, but much like Augustus, the use of de facto rule by ‘executive fiat’[42].

There is also the scandal known as ‘Fast and Furious’. Obama has shown complete contempt for Congress as it has been revealed that the Justice Department threatened whistoleblowers were threatened with execution in a training Manuel as well as revelations that under the pretext of investigating two drug lords supposedly being investigated were on the FBI payroll, the Justice Department sold thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican Drug Cartels. It has been revealed via official documentation that the Obama administration was plotting to use Fast and Furious-linked violence to push more assaults on Gun Rights. While Mexican cartels were receiving heavy weapons courtesy of US taxpayers and the Obama Administration has blatantly avoided any congressional requests for Fast and Furious documents, lying under oath and intimidation of whistleblowers.[43] Now there has been a movement that is calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder, as he has already been held in contempt of Congress for the ongoing cover-up.[44]

Recently Democratic National Committee e-mail to supporters attempted to blackball four Republican congressmen for daring to suggest President Obama could be impeached for repeated violations of the Constitution. It stated that the American public is increasingly concerned with Obama’s illicit extension of executive authority, his repeated bypassing of Congress and the many serious scandals that have plagued this Administration from ‘Fast and Furious’ through Benghazi through the IRS harassment of the Tea Party. The e-mail ended ”The time as come for this country and our elected representatives to have a serious discussion about the constitutional ramifications of Obama highly questionable actions.”[45]

There are much more failures and scandal which have rocked the Obama Presidency such as failure of Obamacare and the lying to the public about keeping their existing Healthcare plan, the IRS harassment and intimidation of opposition groups such as the Tea Party, expanding the War on Terror, threatened to go to the UN if the Senate refused to help him pass legislation, his Obamacare has been a total failure and has been revealed to be data-mining its clientele and most recently attempted to implement the use of government agents to be placed within Newsrooms to mandate ‘equal commentary’ AKA a ‘Fairness Doctrine’ mandate. This was to have all stations supply an equal amount of conservative and liberal political commentary.

Finally, if there were any doubt that Obama has been moving towards the model of Emperor, they can be laid to rest when his 2014 State of the Union is analysed. I would so far to state it was a quiz-announcement of a dictatorship. During the speech, Obama had made it clear that he considers the Congress to be irrelevant, as he announced that he would rule by decree “Whenever and wherever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that is what I am going to do – I’ll act on my own.”[46]

The Beginning of the End: Augustus’s Julio-Claudian Legacy and Obama’s Dictatorial Precedent

If President Obama is de-evolving in US Presidency into an Office of Dictator, we must understand that he himself is not one to blame. As I had explained previously, the fundamental principals of this transformation had be traced back to the very inception of the United States. However, I would like to point out that never before has the President and/or Presidential Candidates have been so blatant in their support for unilateral power. If this is the case, once again we will be able to view our destiny by comparing America to Ancient Rome, specifically Obama and Augustus.

Augustus had managed to ascend to the cusp of greatness, but he was ultimately was a failure. The reforms he enacted did have a positive effect on Rome. This was achieved by returning to the traditions and customs of the time that made Rome great- the Roman Republic. However, although he had managed to reform Roman society, the fact that he was only counterfeiting Republican Restoration, these reforms were not embedded back into Roman culture, and so were only temporary in nature. Had he constructed true reforms during his administration this would not have occurred. Augustus at best only brought about a Pax Augustus, not a Pax Romana. That actually allowed for the rise of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Once the Julio-Claudians established their dominance, Rome experienced corruption, blind ambition, family wars, conspiracy, murder, debauchery, madness, illness, incest, skulduggery, monumental architecture, wealth, conquest and grandiose military triumphs of this era of Roman history.  The two most infamous examples of the intrigues that Julio-Claudian era exhibited can be found in the actions of Emperors Caligula and Nero. Caligula was so uncontrollably insane, he pushed imperialism to its limits and had several Senators put to death. The reign of last Julio-Claudian, Nero, saw further estrangement with republicanism. Continued unrest within the Senate and the provinces gave his enemies the chance to depose him but Nero committed suicide. It is of no surprise that Rome eventually fell into the dustbin of history.

What must be understood, just like the Juilo-Cluadians of Ancient Rome, regardless of political ideology that individuals may represent, or the competency and likability of certain rulers, there was an undemocratic governmental system in place, just as the US today. As my thesis has established that Obama is the modern equivalent of Augustus and Augustus in the Stagecraft of establishing one-man-rule, which saw the a secession of decadent Rulers come to power, which saw the Fall of Rome, logical dictates that the US will experience the same trend. If there is doubt that future Presidents will not only maintain dictatorial powers, but further expand its authority just as the pervious Imperial President Julio-Claudians had done, we need look no further that the quality of Candidates, from across the Political-Spectrum, that have put themselves forward for the last few Presidential Elections. The two most well known candidates who represent such objectives are Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Hilary Clinton.

However, unlike other past dictatorships, which adopted the concept of One-Man Rule, it would seem that the US Dictatorship would be a ‘shared dictatorship’ of the different factional forces of major political parties, political families, cult of personalities and other supporters such as banking, corporations, populism and the Military & Entertainment Industrial Complex. Although democratic institutions and allowance are still present, such as voting, I would say that that the US has adopted Inverted Totalitarianism. What this means, as political philosopher Sheldon Wolin has described, is that the United States has turned into an illiberal democracy, which allows elections to take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the true exercise of power due to the dwindling of civil rights. Although the US Constitution is still in place, which supposedly limits government powers, the prohibitions are largely ignored. The result of this trend will be the establishment of centralized regimes, where separation of powers and branches of government are increasingly merged. Another element, which is also apparent, is the Media, who has the role of policing the government, becomes supportive of the regimes, if not State controlled (as mentioned above by Obama). What becomes entrenched in the minds of Governmental Officials is a belief that they attained a mandate to do as it sees fit as long as regular elections are still held. Ironically, the US has adopted strong similarities seen in other totalitarian regimes such as the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

In keeping to the analogy of America being a modern Imperial Rome, it would seem that Australia nothing more than a Client State.


Before advancing further, we must first understand what constitutes a client state.

It is one state being in an economic, political and militarily subordinate position to another, much more geo-political powerful state. There have been a number of instances throughout history where the dominant power of the time had captured other nations through the use of soft power. For instance, Nazi Germany transformed France into a client state when it established the Vichy Regime. Essentially France was allowed to retain some form of independence and autonomy; but only under the condition it supplied Germany with support and supplies.

As I have already mentioned Australia’s servitude in a previous post, Is Paul Keating right about the Leadership between Australian Prime Ministers and American Presidents?, I will not repeat the history of Australian Political Leadership. But in order to emphasise our geo-political spirit within the analogy of America being the equivalent of Ancient Rome, it is my belief that Australia is the modern Ardiaei Kingdom. The Australian Prime-Minister, regardless of personality or ideology, is formed in the model of Ruler Demetrius of Pharos. We are essentially a client state of the United States.

Although Rome was the geo-political superpower of the Ancient World, it did not achieve its success through hard power domination alone. Instead of simply conquering and absorbing its defeated enemies, it chose to adopt the policy of creating client states. The most well known client state of Ancient Rome was the Ardiaei Kingdom.[47] After the First Punic War, the Ardiaei had grown in power and threatened trade routes, which concerned the Roman Establishment. Over the course of time tensions climaxed to the point of warfare, which lasted between 229 to 228 BC. The aftermath of the First Illyrian War saw Rome appoint Demetrius of Pharos to the position of power, due to the possible threat of the exiled Queen Teuta. In other words, much like the above-mentioned example of Nazi Germany and France, the major reason for this one-sided alliance, was due to geo-political reasons.

As I outlined in my abovementioned previous post, Australia has been absorbed into the American Empire. Much like the Romans and the Ardiaei Kingdom, the Anglo-Americans views Australia as a strategic foothold into the Asian-Pacific. Although the US has not imposed itself overtly, by having the two nations trade, foreign policy and military being so entwined, Australia has essentially became the unofficial 51st State of America. There is also the issue being that Australia is so geopolitically weak and therefore perpetually wanting protection, if the US has become imperial, Australia has adjust her attitudes accordingly. For example, since the end of the Second World War, Australia has fought every war, which the US has been involved; from Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, and most recently the perpetual War on Terror.

As former Keating speechwriter Don Watson has explained, Australia has two choices. The first is to follow the US as if her motives really are wholly sentimental or sentimental; the other is to be clear-eyed and self-interested as they are about things. The latter, being based on a realistic assessment of the American position, we will attain a realistic assessment of our own. We should attempt to emulate only the greatness in American society.[48] For instance, due to the fact that Australia lacks the history, myths and ‘sacred texts’, which is found in American patriotism, we tend to suffer from an inferiority-complex and therefore feel by allowing the National identity to be absorbed, we can enjoy the same success stories as the US Superpower, such as winning the Second World War. Watson points out that there is another alternative by promoting our own brand of patriotism based on our diversity and pluralism, its inorganicness, the absence of oppressive and constraining symbols and seize the chance to create a post-modern republic and a very civil society.[49]


In conclusion, it is safe to say that Augustus not only played his part well, but also was a master of political stagecraft, as he successfully posed has a Republican Reformer. It would seem that Obama has attained the same expertise in the use of political stagecraft also. But the most damning of all is that Australia has been, not only an advert fan of the ‘show’ which is being played out, but a sycophant enjoying the concept of ‘Interactive Theatre’. The only way we can stop this descend into imperialism, we must find our own identity and foreign policy and beginning to chart our own destiny.

Bibliography –

Jones, Alex: Endgame. Directed by Alex Jones. Austin: Texas, 2007.

Kuznick, P (2012) The Untold History of the United States, Ebury, United States

Mackay, C (2004) Ancient Rome, Cambridge University Press, United States

Newman, Alex. Fast and Furious Massacres Spark Fresh Pressure on AG Holder to Resign, 2012 http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13068-fast-and-furious-massacres-spark-fresh-pressure-on-ag-holder-to-resign

Newman, Alex. Obama Vows to Bypass Congress and Rule by Decree, 2014 http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17406-obama-vows-to-bypass-congress-and-rule-by-decree

Newman, Alex. After Fast and Furious, Lawmakers Slam ATF Threats Against Whistleblowers, 2012 http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/12153-after-fast-and-furious-lawmakers-slam-atf-threats-against-whistleblowers

Raaflaab, K. (1990) Between Republic and Empire, University of California Press, United States

Schlesinger, M.A (1974) The Imperial Presidency, Lowe & Brydone Ltd, United Kingdom

Shotter, C, D (2005) Augustus Caesar, Routledge, United States

Suetonius, (2007) The Twelve Caesars, Penguin, United Kingdom

Syme, R (1960) The Roman Revolution, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom

Talbert, A.J.R (1984) The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton University Press, United States

Tarpley, W (2008) Obama: The Postmodern Coup, Progressive Press, United States

Watson, Don. “Rabbit Syndrome.” Australian Quarterly Essay 1, no. 4 (2001): 50-51

“President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address,” http://www.whitehouse.gov, Posted January 28, 2014. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address

Zahn, Drew. Dems’ ‘Don’t Impeach Obama’ Email Backfires. World Net Daily, 2013. http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/dems-dont-impeach-obama-email-backfires/

Zinn, H (2003) A People’s History of the United States, HarperCollins Publishers, United States

[1] David Shotter Augustus Caser, Routledge, United States p.17.

[2] Loc. Cit.

[3] Kurt Raaflaab, Between Republic and Empire, University of California Press, United States, p. 155.

[4] Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, p.2.

[5] Op. cit, Raaflaab, p.68.

[6] Ibid, p.70.

[7] Endgame, directed by Alex Jones (Austin, TX: Magnolia Management, 2007), DVD.

[8] Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Penguin, United Kingdom, p.64.

[9]  op.cit., p.65.

[10] op.cit., p.61.

[11] op.cit., p.63.

[12] op.cit., p.67

[13] op.cit., p.446.

[14] Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom p.358.

[15] Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom p.365.


[17] Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Imperial Presidency, Lowe & Brydone Ltd, United Kingdom p. .

[18] op.cit., p.18.

[19]op.cit., p58.

[20]op.cit., p.58.

[21]op.cit., p.59.

[22]op.cit., p115.

[23]op.cit., p116.

[24]op.cit., p117.

[25]op.cit., p179.

[26]op.cit., p180.

[27] op.cit., p.218.

[28] op.cit., p.254-255.

[29] op.cit., p.265.

[30] op.cit., p.278.

[31] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, HarperCollins Publishers, United States, p.546-547.

[32] Peter Kuznick, The Untold History of the United States, Ebury, United States, p. 347.

[33] op.cit., p. 474-475.

[34] op.cit., p. 486.

[35] op.cit., p. 505.

[36] op.cit., p 550.

[37] op.cit., p.550.

[38] op.cit., p.551.

[39] Webster Tarpley, Obama: The Postmodern Coup, Progressive Press, United States, p.37.

[40]op.cit., p.38.

[41] op.cit., p.122.

[45] Zahn, Dems’ ‘Don’t Impeach Obama’ Email Backfires. World Net Daily, 2013. http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/dems-dont-impeach-obama-email-backfires

[46] “President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address,” http://www.whitehouse.gov, Posted January 28, 2014. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address

[47] Christopher Mackay, Ancient Rome, Cambridge University Press, United States, p.66.

[48] Don Watson, “Rabbit Syndrome,” Australian Quarterly Essay 1. No. 4 (2001): 50.

[49] Watson, “Rabbit Syndrome,” 51.