I can only recommend a study of the eonic effect and the light it throws on the rise of the modern, first in a trigger zone, thence via globalization to the whole world. If we study the eonic effect we can see that while the Axial Age achieved a balanced global field by acting in parallel, in the modern case it works via a single pivot to create a single global culture. Ferguson’s eurocentric concern over who is the dominant imperialism merely depicts modernity in decadence: the success of a global system, and the inevitable shift in power balances is something to be welcomed. Instead we have a nervous concern over power and control. That is inevitable if the democratic revolutions that accompanied the modern transition are thwarted in the global field. But the impulse to empire has spoiled the effect, which was not about Europe, but the stepping stone to a gloabal civilization. The issue of the United States tends to miss the point that the USA was not in the core zone, but precisely one of the first successes of the globalization of the modern transition. Thus the only contribution the USA can make to globalization is to maintain the intergrity of its democratic revolution. Instead we see the onset of decadence as imperialism. These historians thus have it wrong: they speak of decline as breakdown of imperialism. But the real decline is the phase of imperialism itself.