Book Review: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

by Elusive Wapiti on November 5, 2011

The Book: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon

The Gist: This was a massive, and I mean massive, set of books that chronicled several centuries of the Roman Empire from immediately before its apogee to the breakup into the short-lived Western empire and comparably longer-lived Eastern Empire. While Gibbon’s eighteenth-century prose was somewhat archaic, it was still quite readable as it drew an outstanding and detailed picture of life within the Roman Empire at the time, as well as cataloging the political and cultural forces that contributed to its rise and drove its fall from power. Rather than attempt to poorly encapsulate what Gibbon wrote, I will instead discuss some of the key take-aways I had from the book–takeaways that may speak more to my own preferences and prejudices than to the book itself, but no matter–and some of the other topics that I found interesting.

My first takeaway from Fall was the role that (im)migration and multiculturalism played in the demise of the Roman Empire. Whereas the Romans used their techniques of cultural and ethnic cleansing to great effect during the expansion of the empire, namely insisting that conquered peoples speak Latin (much culture is embedded in a language), utilize a Roman-style civil and military government, and no longer practice their religions, my sense was that Rome grew too large to effectively implement this course of action.* Indeed, if there was anything to conclude from Gibbon’s history, it was that, in the end, the far-flung roman empire collapsed under the weight of attempting to implement an e pluribus unum. The Greeks proved too proud to give up their language and culture, the Celts kept theirs due to the difficulty of the terrain they inhabited, the Egyptians too truculent, and the tribes of the Eastern Steppes were too different in skin tone and morphology to assimilate into a Southern European culture. It was diversity, it was multiculturalism that did them in:

multitudes of secret enemies, insolent from favor, or desperate from oppression, were introduced into the heart of the empire

and the sort of chauvinistic tribalism of the sort that we in the West are experiencing today precluded the cultural consensus that sustains a large empire, and ate out the substance of the Roman Empire from within.

* One advantage of Roman-style polytheism was that the Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian all alike were easily convinced that they worshipped the same deities, just under a different name. This eased integration of conquered tribes and nations into the Roman fold and reduced the need for the sort of  forcible conversions so common in Egypt, Celtic Gaul, and in Scythia.

The second take-away from Gibbon’s tome was the corrosive effect that “arriving”, of achieving what it sought to achieve, has on a culture. At the apogee of their culture, their hunger sated by luxury, Roman citizens had settled back into a comfortable and languid existence, much to their detriment:

Long peace and uniform government of the Romans introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the Empire. The minds of men were gradually extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated. Their personal valor remained but they no longer possessed the public courage which is nourished by the love of independence, the sense of national honor, the presence of anger, and the habit of command

This “slow and secret poison” combined with the blessings of luxury, the hardships associated with the colonization of foreign lands, an aversion to marriage, increased acceptance of homosexuality, and what Gibbons called a “depravity of manners that interfered with procreation, birth, and the rearing of children”, served to depress birth rates and turn the minds of Romans away from the harder business of patriotism and toward voluptuous dissipation. In a similar manner the inclinations of the populace shifted too, away from the honor of public service to the State and toward more personal and commercial ends. Nowhere was this more obviously felt than in the military, a province which was once dominated by citizens who “had a country to love, property to defend, and some share in enacting the laws” and which it was the interest and duty of the citizen to maintain. Instead, just like today in the West, the upper classes came to shun military service, and as a result the military became more ‘democratized’, more plebian, and more foreign, and thus the former strength of the empire became one of its greatest vulnerabilities:

The more polished citizens of the internal provinces were alone qualified to act as lawyers and magistrates. The rougher trade of arms was abandoned to the peasants and barbarians of the frontiers, who knew no country but their camp, no science but that of war, no civil laws, and scarcely those of military discipline. With bloody hands, savage manners, and desperate resolutions, they sometimes guarded, but much often subverted the throne of the emperors

Thinking it beneath them or not worth their time, the citizens gradually delegated their collective defense to the mercenary servants of despotic princes. They would come to regret having done so, once their liberties had long departed the land.

Speaking of the collective defense, the relationship of the military to the State and the form of State government is another take-away from Gibbon’s work. For it was Gibbon’s considered opinion that the lack of an orderly mechanism for the transfer of power, coupled with a mercenary army staffed by the ruder classes and by foreigners, opened the door to repeated military coups and the wars of succession that roiled the empire after the golden age of the Antoines. Gibbon again:

…the temperance of soldiers, habituated at once to violence and to slavery, renders them very unfit guardians of a legal, or even a civil constitution. Justice, humanity, or political wisdom are qualities they are too little acquainted with in themselves to appreciate them in others

It is against this backdrop that the elite Praetorian Guard, an elite cadre of military men who fancied themselves as guardians of the realm, caused much mischief during the Fall. For instance, because they rose through the ranks by merit, they thought themselves–nay, they deserved–to be the “true” representatives of the common people. For certain they were more representative of the Mob than the stuffy and privileged nobility, and this “popular mandate” of sorts led them to adopt the conceit that they alone were the entity best positioned to elect the chief of the Empire

[T]he meanest of mankind might, without folly, entertain a hope of being raised by valor and fortune to a rank in the army, in which a single crime would enable him to wrest the sceptre of the world from his feeble and unpopular master

Thus, for a people with no tradition of civil control of the military, a weak mechanism for the transfer of State authority from one ruler to the next, and whose upper classes had abandoned the military to proles and to barbaricum, the loss of the Republic quickly resulted in martial despotism.

The fourth take-away is that Roman society succumbed to pressure by more dynamic and vigorous cultures. Rome had the misfortune to peak just before the Volkerwanderung, or the “Great Migration”. Weak, tired, effete, and decadent, Rome was unable to defend her frontier provinces from the virile and martial Nordic and Eurasian hordes that pushed their way into the vacuum created by Rome’s decaying and retrenching political and economic power. That a once powerful and mighty culture would yield to a more masculine, a more martial, and more aggressive culture is a lesson repeated throughout history and we Westerners would do well to consider the application of such a take-away to our present lot.

I now adjust course slightly, and discuss not “take-aways” but rather subjects that I found merely interesting. For instance, many other authors interpret Gibbon’s barely concealed hostility toward Christianity–typical of Enlightenment-era thinkers–as an indicator that he attributes the rise of Christianity as a contributing factor to the Fall. I am not so sure that Gibbon did so. Sure Gibbon extolled the virtues of so-called pagan tolerance of Christianity, a claim easily refuted by considering the cruelties of pagan rulers toward their Christian subjects. But I think that Gibbon located the enfeebling of Roman virtues and corroding of Roman civic institutions prior to the arrival of Christianity; indeed, Rome was already on the downward slide when Christianity began to metastasize through the provinces. For sure, in some ways Christianity gave a teetering pagan Roman society a shove.  It degraded the legitimacy of polytheism (Gibbon relays the dilemma of Christian legionnaires prohibited by their faith from participating in pagan prayers and practices prior to battle…doesn’t take too much of that to erode unit cohesion), while the ranks of Christians swelled through the generosity of Christian alms “which paid less regard to the merit than to the distress of the object” and through the rescue and adoption of infants abandoned to the elements in the Bronze Age version abortion. Another factor Gibbon cited as contributing to the rapid spread of Christianity was its relatively favorable reputation when compared to another monotheistic religion originating from Palestine…Judaism.   In contrast to Jews, Christians were possessed of fewer onerous and strange habits, lacked the Jew’s conspicuous ethnic tribalism, and were other-oriented, whereas Judeans were famous for their inwardly focused insularity. In short, I think Gibbon saw the rapid spread of Christianity as a secondary symptom of a spiritually bereft people responding to the evangelistic zeal of the early Christians, rather than a primary cause of the sort of unmanly softness that make Rome so vulnerable to invasion.

I also found Gibbon’s description of the Germanic tribes to the north of the Alps to be quite interesting, if nothing for the study in contrasts that such a description provides. The Romans were a complex, hierarchical, agricultural society, and as such were technologically, socially, and culturally advanced. This level of civilizational advance stood in stark relief with the egalitarian primitiveness and rude condition of the barbaric cultures that Rome encountered to the West (Gaul), North (Germans, Danes, and Britons), and East (Scythians and Dacians). Gibbon:

If we contemplate a savage nation in any part of the globe, supine indolence and a carelessness of futurity will be found to constitute their general character. In a civilized state, every faculty of man is expanded and exercised; and the great chain of mutual dependence connects and embraces the several members of society. The most numerous portion of it is employed in constant and useful labor. The select few, placed by fortune above that necessity, can, however, fill up their time by the pursuits of interest or glory, by the improvement of their estate or of their understanding, but the duties, the pleasures, or even the follies of social life

Indeed, Gibbon characterized the character of Rome’s barbaric neighbors, especially that of their Germanic neighbors to the north, thusly:

The languid soul, oppressed with its own weight, anxiously required some new and powerful sensation; war and danger were the only amusements adequate to its fierce temper

The Germanic tribes to the north were particularly warlike in Gibbons’ account. Their system of governance was a sort of tribal democracy, where war chiefs were chosen from the ranks of warriors by popular election. The way to gain influence and power was to fight, and fight well, and the way that the German war chiefs garnered wealth was through the booty captured by raiding and/or subduing neighboring peoples. According to Gibbon, this social inclination, combined with a harsh climate, want of learning, arts, and laws, the Germanic notions of honor, gallantry, religion, fierce independence and sense of freedom, contributed to form a people to whom military heroism was a way of life.

Furthermore, I found the role of women in German society, as described by Gibbon, to be interesting, if not instructive, study in the effects that sex roles have on the prosperity and living standards of the society (or lack thereof). Consistent with the role of women in hunter-gatherer civilizations, Germanic society at the time of the Roman Empire was quite egalitarian and featured a variant of fertility worship that ensured women were held in high esteem by the violent and hard warrior

The Germans treated their women with esteem and confidence, consulted them on every occasion of importance and fondly believed that in their breasts resided a sanctity and wisdom more than human

Like the German warrior male, the German woman was deeply concerned with honor, such that while male honor came from success on the battlefield, honor for the German woman was tied to her virginity upon marriage and fidelity thereafter. Moreover, prefiguring my contention that women are a civilization’s center of gravity, that the state of women in a society determines the direction of the society, Gibbon wrote similarly of German women in the Tribes some 2,000 years ago that

the sentiments and conduct of these high-spirited matrons may at once be considered as a cause, as an effect, and as a proof of the general character of the nation

Thus, similar in effect to the Spartan woman’s famous exhortation “return with your shield or on it”, did the German woman’s own example of honorable conduct, high social stature, and insistence that her man behave similarly, reinforce and sustain the warlike character of the aggressive German tribes. It also stalled civilizational advancement: In societies where women are egalitarian, are equal partners on par with men, and where their sexuality and fertility is an object of worship, persistent material poverty follows. In contrast, when inegalitarian sex role specialization characteristic of agrarian (or more advanced) societies takes root, the sort of wealth and high standard of living that comes with civilization accompanies.

Last, the below quote of Gibbon’s was attention-getting for me, as a fellow interested in the power dynamics between clergy, the State, and the people and the interaction of these three with freedom and liberty:

…so intimate is the connection between the throne and the altar, that the banner of the church has very seldom been seen on the side of the people. A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against enterprises of an aspiring prince

While this viewpoint probably well reflects the post-Enlightenment, deist-bordering-on-atheist zeitgeist of the time in Britain (Gibbon’s work was published in 1776), I highlight it here as a civics lesson, passed down to us moderns from our forefathers.  Of course a mere cursory examination of history reveals evidence that Gibbon was correct on the tendency of the church/temple/synagogue/mosque to ally itself with the state in opposition to the people or liberty, rather than protect the people from state abuse.  Examples abound, and three that immediately come to mind are (a) the modern church of sec-humanism, where, riffing on Louis XIV,  l’etat, c’est Dieu, (b) the nexus of mainline “right hand of God” Protestantism and  Progressive statism in late 19th / early 20th century America, and (c) the entangling of the Roman Catholic Church with various princes throughout history, both pre- and post-Reformation, more recently in the Church’s comfortability with state force to accomplish “churchy” ends, such as un-Biblical welfare, or most recently in calls for a global, one-world government just last month.  Moreover, Gibbon’s mention of the natural rights of self-defense (“possessed of arms”) and property rights (“tenacious of property”) were fundamental, foundational rights upon which American-style Republicanism was founded.  Both are under progressively more intense Progressive attack, and both are in decline.  In a similar manner, Gibbon would be hard pressed to locate his martial nobility in modern-day America, the elite having long since abandoned military service, and his stubborn commons has mostly melted away into a more pliant mob.

In summary, Gibbon’s long tome was a worthwhile read, and my few excerpts here do not do his work justice. Gibbon seemed to attribute the Fall to multiculralism, luxos, to upper class abandonment of service to the State (in favor of presumably commercial ends), and to the feminization of the culture. In addition, I found Gibbon’s characterization of the role that Christianity played in the Fall to be interesting, as well as the implications that the organization of barbarian Germanic tribal society have for us moderns, especially as it pertains to religion, to family structure, and to sexual role specialization in a culture.  Finally, Gibbon’s observations regarding the interaction of the church, the state, the elite, the commons, and natural rights such as the right to self-defense and the right to property remind us all of the fundamental tenets upon which Western civilzation in general, and American society in particular, were founded.


About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.

{ 68 comments… read them below or add one }

alpha November 5, 2011 at 12:36

Brilliant Post Sir!

Question:If multiculturalism is indeed a suicide pill(and it likely is), why on Earth do any nation’s leaders favor it???

Personal Experience:I recall watching an old British comedy(Mind Your Language) , one tiny line in one episode referred to the aim of making Britain a multicultural society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Opus November 5, 2011 at 12:50

Romani Ite Domum

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
greenlander November 5, 2011 at 12:55

The moral of the story is: our decay is now upon us.

Enjoy your panem et circenses as long as it lasts.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
oddsock November 5, 2011 at 13:11

Romanes Eunt Domus

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Pirran November 5, 2011 at 13:22

That’s it, oddsock, I’m cutting your balls off at sunrise…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
oddsock November 5, 2011 at 13:26

Pirran

Hahah I promise I will write Romani Ite Domum 100 times

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
gender foreigner November 5, 2011 at 13:34

The everything-goes omnidirection of multiculturalism which goes along with the feminine-driven inability to say no to people in their wishes to cost others is certainly notable.

Everybody-counts-but-the-groups-of-which-I-am-a-member mentality pervades all. There are those with rights to harm: there are those with responsibility to be harmed.

Today, in various women’s newspapers across Canada, Canada’s former Governor General (the second last one we had–and the second-worse–Michaelle Jean from Hait was even worse), Adrienne Clarkson (from Hong Kong) praised Canada’s Multiculturalism declaring that there was room for all (all, except males, whites, Anglo Saxons, Anglophones, the domestically born, heterosexuals and Christians, cagegorically).

In contrast, the groups with right to harm are: females, nonwhites, nonAnglo Saxons, Francophones, the foreign-born, homosexuals and nonChristians.

There’s no hope in a frauenreich. All is evil and getting worse. Destruction of the frauenreich is the answer (and its replacement with patriarchal exclusionism, responsibilityism, legitimacy, production…).

And, of course that answer is under construction as the unintended effect of the inferiority of matriarchy. It takes a while, harms many unjustly, rewards many unjustly, etc., but it necessarily will be here in toto, no prisoners. The fall of Rome is nigh. Every man for himself and not women, cagegorically. Women must be put into their place. If one doesn’t, one will only have the next wave of death where even fewer will know what the answer is to rectify the cancerous nonsociety of women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
DCM November 5, 2011 at 13:42

That is a problem with empires. Smaller nations more easily preserve a coherent culture and have an easier time insisting that if you want to live there you become one of them.
This doesn’t mean that small nations like the traditional modern European countries need to fight each other since they can as easily assist each other.
For its overall culture to survive the West and such huge entities as Canada and the US need to separate into autonomous units. One lesson of Rome is that Western culture can’t really thrive under such an entity unlike Chinese culture under its empire lasting from 300BC to 1910AD.
Small nations aren’t necessarily weak. I’m not proposing a return to imperialism but Spain and England achieved world wide empires yet were smaller than some US states. Modern technology doesn’t even require empires.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
criolle johnny November 5, 2011 at 13:46

TEACHERS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Zorro November 5, 2011 at 13:56

The Atlantic sucks major donkey ass.

The Spearhead is awesomeness, and this article is a prime example of why.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5
mananon November 5, 2011 at 14:00

Decadence is the enemy of civilisation. The martial spirit, or entrepeneurial thrust, or pioneer spirit of all great empires/civilisations, produces the opportunity for a more comfortable, ‘civilised’ existence.

Then, as the fruits of whatever courage, valour or hard work helped bring about the empire’s success start to filter through to the population at large the hardships of the past, that were the incentive for people to fight, migrate or whatever are lost. Then people become fat, lazy and decadent. Worse they become complacent – until the barbarians arrive at the gates. But by then it’s too late.

Are the barbarians at the gates of the west? Look about you – they are aleady amongst us. And all men can do is talk about the big game on Sky Sports or ESPN, and all women do is demand more non-jobs paid for by taxpayer largesse.

Welcome to the past, no need for those history books now…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 3
keyster November 5, 2011 at 14:04

The founding fathers of the United States modeled this “new” system of government in great part based off of Greco-Roman democracy. They analyzed the fall of the Empire and learned what’s best NOT to do; such as federalism and a method of peaceful succession of power. Obviously they rejected monarchy.

It’s yet to be seen whether they got it right, but the present day alternatives are certianly no better. Perhaps government controlled quasi-capitalism like China or Russia, or theocratic dictatorships like Iran.

The parallels to Rome (and later the United Kingdom’s “soft” collapse), to the United States, is to say while human empires will rise during the course of civilized history, they are also inevitably doomed to fall, as they become too large and unwieldy, too expensive to maintain and too soft around the middle. It’s possible, the signs are there.

Suffice to say if the United States fails Barbarians will rule the world again, at least until another empire rises. The Muslim Jihadist prays very hard for this day to come.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4
Beltain November 5, 2011 at 14:42

Decadence, multiculturalism, feminism and out of control complexity all played their part certainly but in the end it was a lack of resources that caused Rome to collapse. For so many years they lived with an abundance as they transferred the collected wealth and energy of conquered territories to Rome. This abundance allowed the mis-use of these resources much as we have seen in the West over the last few decades. Social engineering and widespread spending on endeavors that produce next to nothing, all attempts to make a square peg fit into a round hole just to satisfy the whims of some group or fit the idea of a social justice theory.

Instead of dealing with problems in the time proven way they tried to buy their way out allowing whole populations to settle within the borders. They created a tax and legislation system that became so complex that entire industries and farms just ceased to exist.

What remains to be seen today however is just how long we can continue to live off cheap energy as a resource. Once it isn’t so cheap anymore the excessive spending stops and Rome collapses once again.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
Carnivore November 5, 2011 at 15:17

Not specific to the Roman empire (but the hints are there), see the series of paintings by Thomas Cole, The Course of Empire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Course_of_Empire#The_Course_of_Empire

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
mananon November 5, 2011 at 15:51

Another factor that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire, or more correctly the Western Empire was the crippling burdens inflicted upon the populace by the government. Crippling taxation, endemic corruption and an oppressive military regime that attempted among other things to conscript men into the army all helped to alienate the native Italian population from the Empire. It became more and more difficult therefore for the state to raise the necessary armies to defend itself and to raise the revenues needed to fund those armies.

As unrest increased oppression became more and more endemic in the late Western Empire. More and more offences were punishable by death. And as the attempts by the state to press more men into military service increased, more men sought ways to avoid it. One of the methods employed was for men to amputate the thumbs of their right hand, so they would be rendered physically unfit for service. So widespread did this practice become the government declared this kind of self-mutilation a serious offence, punishable in some cases by death.

Oppressive government, alienation of the public and the government meant to serve them, and seemingly ever increasing taxation. Where have we seen this before?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
mananon November 5, 2011 at 15:58

I’ve just depressed myself thinking of the decline that seems inevitable for our countries.

Nunc est bibendum

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Rebel November 5, 2011 at 16:11

@oddsock

Hahah I promise I will write Romani Ite Domum 100 times”

Romani areus fuckum et kaputum becausum Romanas fucka toomuchum cum Germanicatus prickus.

Not sure about the spelling.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
keyster November 5, 2011 at 17:25

“For its overall culture to survive the West and such huge entities as Canada and the US need to separate into autonomous units.”

That was the idea behind the “United” States and states rights. The feds keep wanting to encroach on our rights and raise our taxes higher to keep doing the same. The Dept of Education is a prime example. As soon as the feds see a way to better control the states they do it.

Eventually our utopian multi-culti “melting pot” will divide into Little Mexico in the southwest, Leftistville on the coasts, little pockets of lingering afros hither and yon, and gun toting, bible clinging crackers to the northern mountian areas. We’re already identifying states as Red and Blue, so it’s just a matter of time.

The fed goes officially insolvent and collapses, the states will UN-unite to distance themselves from the turmoil. When “trillions of dollars in debt” becomes the new normal, Balkanization is not far behind. We’re deluding ourselves if all this somehow works itself out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3
Paul Murray November 5, 2011 at 19:34

Another worthwhile read is Machiavelli’s “Discourses”. “The Prince” was written in an attempt to get a job, and it’s shorter and glossed over things a bit. His discourses are broader in scope, and divided into mostly bite-sized chunks. It’s an easy read. A lot of it seems obvious, but only because his ideas have since become common currency. Machiavelli dared to suggest, for instance, that military victory had more to do with who had the bigger and better-trained army, than with the will of God.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray November 5, 2011 at 19:38

“The fed goes officially insolvent and collapses,”

Dude, “The Fed” prints the money. The only way they can “go insolvent” is if an alternative currency to banker-scrip is adopted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
ElectricAngel November 5, 2011 at 20:09

@EW,

This level of civilizational advance stood in stark relief with the egalitarian primitiveness and rude condition of the barbaric cultures that Rome encountered to the West (Gaul), North (Germans, Danes, and Britons), and East (Scythians and Dacians).

Beltain above hints at the thing that caused Roman downfall: excess centralization and resource exploitation. Those are somewhat covered in Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies, which talks about how Rome ran out of steam when it ran out of neighbors to exploit. There’s a good summary of that argument here.

But your highlighting of this comment by Gibbon earns you a reading assignment from this erstwhile college professor. You must pick up a copy of Terry Jones’ Barbarians. Remember that Gibbon was writing in a society that had recently taken over India, was seizing much of Spain’s land in North America, and was building its own empire: he was writing for people indisposed to see how empire is at war with civilization. Jones is not so concerned. Read his book, and see if you don’t agree that the collapse of Rome was the best thing that could have happened; Jones talks about how advanced societies like the Gauls were, and how wealthy, and how unfortunate they were to be located near the militaristic, incurious, murdering, brutal Romans.

One example will suffice: the Antikythera Mechanism. This was an early computer, built by the cooperative Greek city-state economies that were beginning to work with the scientific method (of course, Archimedes, as we now know from http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/ had already developed a proto-version of the Calculus, before he was murdered by the Romans.). Hieron of Alexandria built a steam turbine in 190BC. Rome destroyed this economy, as the Roman solution to lack of sufficient labor was to conquer a neighbor and enslave the populace. It took the West 1900 years to undo this damage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
gender foreigner November 5, 2011 at 20:25

Derar alpha November 5, 2011 at 12:36:
.
.
.
“Brilliant Post Sir!

Question:If multiculturalism is indeed a suicide pill(and it likely is), why on Earth do any nation’s leaders favor it??? ”
.
.
There was an American political scientist who conducted a study of lobbying of the U.S. Congress. His study was during the 1950s. Theodore Low (if I recall correctly).

It was excellent work. To boil it down, there are three kinds of policy responses to lobbyists.

1. Distributive Politics,
2. Redistributive Politics &
3. Regulation.

Both politicians and members of the public prefer #1.

In #1, you just bribe people with resources (porkbareling). You can always divide brives into smaller increments. In opposition to such, bribees have an incentive to shut up about what they are receiving. The apparent source of the resources distributed is not identified per se.

In #2, the source of the bribe (victim group) is known as is the benefiting victimizing group. “Take from the rich and give to the poor.” This two-edged sword offers both benefits to the victimizing group and injury to known victim group(s). FEMINISM IS OF THIS TYPE as are all types of Affirmative Action.

In #3, people are told what to do. “Don’t drive over 100 km/h.” “Wear your seatbelt.” Both the politician boss and bossed group dislike this manner of ruling, generally.

Multicultural grants, preference to various immigrant groups, etc. are bribes which are as per identifiable groups. One can have sculpted voter support in every riding as per such bribes.

Such bribes address the procedural matter of WHO GOVERNMENT IS BY (the politican’s goal of being in office–the briber). The policies themselves address the substantive matter of WHO GOVERNMENT IS FOR (AND AGAINST). Victimizing groups and victim groups are thusly created and society is rendered centrifugal in its loyalties (people do not support the whole but rather the part of which they are benefitted members). Victim groups are sacrified on the altar for the victimizing groups. Society is thusly in a social civil war whose destruction is inevitable.

That’s why governments support Multiculturalism. It’s the easiest identifiable way to hone one’s electoral support by choosing one’s electoral friends and creating one’s electoral enemies. Collectivized groups are benefitted whereas individuated groups (such as males and Anglo Saxons) cannot get their act together because they are individualist and, as such, cannot fight back. Collective strength versus individual weakness are in evidence.

Alienation of victim groups occurs and as such victims cannot find address within the system which harms them, they act against that system. The society is thusly rendered dysfunctional.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
craichead November 5, 2011 at 20:54

If anyone’s interested, the entire set of Gibbons is available free on project gutenberg.

I’ve actually been reading it off and on over the last year. This quote stopped me in my tracks:

“The subjects of Constantine were incapable of discerning the decline of genius and manly virtue, which so far degraded them below the dignity of their ancestors; but they could feel and lament the rage of tyranny, the relaxation of discipline, and the increase of taxes.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel November 5, 2011 at 22:50

Thanks for a great article. The only thought I would add is the contribution of low birth rates to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Rome fell as the Romans themselves disappeared.

Every time I ponder these issues I return to the fact that John Glubb cracked the code in The Fate of Empires .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Migu November 5, 2011 at 23:03

Its on scribd too. I seem to recall gibbons contending that around 400 ad or thereabouts Roman citizens were fleeing Roman rule as they saw that the various germanics offered them a better life, mainly by demanding less tribute/taxes. Basically the men said…..pound sand Rome we are Germans now.

If I recall correctly. Its been awhile since I read that mini library.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Beltain November 5, 2011 at 23:12

ElectricAngel

I really didn’t think I was hinting at anything. As a matter of fact I thought I was stating it pretty plainly.

As Tainter points out it wasn’t just Rome that fell to the complexity and lack of resources when there were no more neighbors to conquer. Other empires suffered the same fate. Despite the similarities however the introduction of fossil fuels changes the game during our modern era and as long as cheap energy is available Western civilization collapse may take another road or continue to worsen before it cracks.

This time we are on a new path unlike countless societies that have come before us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire November 6, 2011 at 01:01

“multitudes of secret enemies, insolent from favor (read female), or desperate from oppression (tougher men from tougher lands), were introduced into the heart of the empire”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire November 6, 2011 at 01:16

“The more polished citizens of the internal provinces were alone qualified to act as lawyers and magistrates. The rougher trade of arms was abandoned to the peasants and barbarians of the frontiers, who knew no country but their camp, no science but that of war, no civil laws, and scarcely those of military discipline.”

*********

Happened because the ‘rougher trade of arms’ does not appeal to the more gracile and effeminate types that civilizations unwittingly select for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire November 6, 2011 at 01:29

“Long peace and uniform government of the Romans introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the Empire. The minds of men were gradually extinguished-

[Civilizations, where the masses can benefit from the genius of the few (i.e. technology) without having to be geniuses themselves, keep alive the mentally as well as physically feeble.]

-and even the military spirit evaporated.”

[Because the low T males that civ breeds for don't get into that kind of stuff.]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire November 6, 2011 at 01:57

“…the temperance of soldiers, habituated at once to violence and to slavery, renders them very unfit guardians of a legal, or even a civil constitution. Justice, humanity, or political wisdom are qualities they are too little acquainted with in themselves to appreciate them in others.”

******************

What middle eastern folks does THAT remind you of?

***************
“For sure, in some ways Christianity gave a teetering pagan Roman society a shove. It degraded the legitimacy of polytheism (Gibbon relays the dilemma of Christian legionnaires prohibited by their faith from participating in pagan prayers and practices prior to battle…doesn’t take too much of that to erode unit cohesion),”

***************

And now the cultural marxists are undermining Christianity the same way Christianity once undermined Roman polytheism.
With the same effects.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire November 6, 2011 at 01:39

“Germanic society at the time of the Roman Empire was quite egalitarian and featured a variant of fertility worship that ensured women were held in high esteem by the violent and hard warrior”

Now he moves into la-la land with the matriarchy of the bush bullshit so many of you like to hear.

Do you folks really think that “violent and hard warrior” type men don’t hit women more than nice guys do (and for far more trivial reasons)?

Or do you think that men hitting women is actually a sign of matriarchy? (If so then what’s so bad about VAWA?)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
evilwhitemalempire November 6, 2011 at 01:46

If a man has a smaller dick that you then he’s an effeminate wimp who enables matriarchy.
BUT if he’s got a bigger dick then he’s an uncouth, savage, barbarian who………
…………. enables matriarchy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Hydroxide November 6, 2011 at 01:58

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18
Hydroxide November 6, 2011 at 02:06

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17
driftwood November 6, 2011 at 02:59

Pat Buchanan’s new book, Suicide of a Superpower, addresses this subject. He lays out the reasons why the West is in decline – loss of faith, immigration, low birth rates, government largesse – and backs up his argument with facts. Buchanan doesn’t focus on feminism as a cause of our decline, but I’m not sure why. I don’t get the feeling that he would disagree with the mens movement view of the world. As a matter of fact, I think Buchanan is the most mainstream writer who would agree with us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
DCM November 6, 2011 at 03:47

In the same vein as the erosion of pagan virtues in Rome is a statement by Carl Jung — sorry I can’t cite the essay — in which he noted a generally overlooked parallel.
He notes that many enlightened pagans became disgusted by their gods’ moral examples and mentions (among others) a Roman who wrote that Venus/Aphrodite behaves “like a waitress in a cheap diner”.
Jung then said that the psychoanalytic reduction of Christian and Jewish stories and values to primitive practices and toilet training and incest is the modern equivalent of that.
Jung seems to have been trying to set up a system to take over from and include earlier beliefs before the sublimations hit the fan and Western culture fell into a kind of anarchy. His system remains a sort of cultlike psychoanalytic system that’s a but clumsy for modern times but I doubt anyone could have predicted the effects of information technology and the like even though it was taking hold in the early 1900s.
The problem remains of social coherence and workable values.

Sorry I can’t give direct citations but my notes are hardcopies and I don’t want to go through pages and pages — several hundred — right now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
alpha November 6, 2011 at 04:02

Hydroxide

Have you been drinking hydroxide?

what new tech is gonna solve the problem of multiculturalism and feminism?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
gender foreigner November 6, 2011 at 06:55

Dear driftwood November 6, 2011 at 02:59:
.
.
“Pat Buchanan’s new book, Suicide of a Superpower, addresses this subject. He lays out the reasons why the West is in decline – loss of faith, immigration, low birth rates, government largesse – and backs up his argument with facts. Buchanan doesn’t focus on feminism as a cause of our decline, but I’m not sure why. I don’t get the feeling that he would disagree with the mens movement view of the world. As a matter of fact, I think Buchanan is the most mainstream writer who would agree with us.”
.
.
Along with his unwillingness to focus on the Feminist problem is the companion phenomenon to Feminism, the wimp man who refuses to hold women accountability for what they do and don’t do, his unwillingness to be forward about the need for women to embrace the proper role of a woman to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen under the authority of a man to whom she is married. Pat Buchanan utterly refuses to preach the soundess of patriarchy as so very much of the central solution to the Feminist problem: he refuses to tell women what they should do (the exact oppositie of what they aspire to do and do do).

Pat Buchanan utterly refuses, “to take the cow by the horns.” Not withstanding his evident decision not to stand for what needs to be done and have women in their proper place, Pat Buchana is insightful. However, insight without exercised commitment is as USEless as having a great cook book combined with a decision not to cook (and, not even to have been prepared to have included in that cook book the best recipe for the problem’s solution).

As such, Pat Buchanan is doublely in error, in plan and in deed. His life is too soft for him to have the needed willingness to act against women’s offences. He is a latter-day Roman who will not sacrifice himself socially for the benefit of the whole. As such, as a Pat Buchanan, he wins, but as a man, he loses, along with the rest of the male race.

Pat Buchanan is not the solution: he’s the prototype of the problem; same old, same old.

We in the trenches with all of our manly injuries as a direct result of the Feminist problem, have a contrasting higher willingness and NECESSITY to act. He should not lead us: we should lead him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
gender foreigner November 6, 2011 at 09:34

As per the point that the deline of birth rates contributing to the fall of the Roman Empire, it is notable that the Feminazis originals of the Third Reich murdered 7 000 000 babies in the womb. Those in utero baby murders were not only de facto murder but de jure murder as such were committed by/for Aryan-defined women.

The Third Reich hiearchy, including Hitler objected to those abortions because they were of the, “Master Race.” The Nazi men were wimps. They could not stand up to women. Their mangina status was in large part contributory to the nonfuture of Germany. Just as in the West and much beyond today, Nazi men were wimps even in the face of the most murderous actions of women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Elusive Wapiti November 6, 2011 at 09:37

“why on Earth do any nation’s leaders favor [multiculturalism]“

Not certain why, other than they are following post-Enlightenment ideology that states that all peoples and cultures are equal…therefore no logical support for nativism. Added to this is the weissenhassen of contemporary leftist culture…which, as Gender Foreigner has highlighted, has particularly unique consequences for societies of European extraction.

As we can see, Rome had an encounter with multi-kulti and suffered greatly for it.

Those who do not know or heed their history are doomed to repeat it.

@ Electric Angel,

“how unfortunate they were to be located near the militaristic, incurious, murdering, brutal Romans.”

And chauvinistic.

Firepower November 6, 2011 at 10:36

Elusive Wapiti

My first takeaway from Fall was the role that (im)migration and multiculturalism played in the demise of the Roman Empire. Whereas the Romans used their techniques of cultural and ethnic cleansing to great effect during the expansion of the empire…

Likewise, when America culturally and ethically cleansed IT’S land – America expanded. When we started putting Indians on coins and killing each other over slaves – we injected ourselves with cancer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7
joe November 6, 2011 at 10:36

@Paul Murray – the Fed goes insolvent the minute people en masse wake up and realise the dollar is basically worthless, as it is backed by nothing more than hot air.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
keyster November 6, 2011 at 10:46

“Pat Buchanan utterly refuses, “to take the cow by the horns.””

The difference between the conservative and the liberal is that the liberal openly and proudly condones feminism, while the conservative has to be nuanced in his criticism.

The only conservative that openly and reliably criticizes feminism is Phyllis Schlafly; although Mark Steyn and Rush Limbaugh take intermittant pot shots. Defeat liberalism and minimize the influence of the Democratic Party, and you strike down the political and judicial influence of feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7
joe November 6, 2011 at 10:55

Speaking of the destruction of the Republic:

Aarron Russo tears apart the lying totalitarian oligarchy of the Federal Reserve and their pawns in the IRS, Homeland Security, the GOP and the Democrats etc. etc. in this really well put together documentary – From Freedom to Fascism…

I watched it for the first time last night… If you haven’t seen it yet, I can’t recommend it strongly enough, especially to all Americans:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

The Rockerfeller family is of course very strongly behind this stuff. If you google Aarron Russo’s interview with Alex Jones, he tells of his lengthy aquaintance with Nick Rockerfeller (who tried to recruit Russo to the Council on Foreign Relations). Feminism is one of their tools. Nick Rockerfeller explicitly told Russo that the Rockerfeller’s funded feminism so that:
1) they could tax the other half of the population (all your income tax goes to the national debt = Federal Reserve = a cartel of private banks, the Fed is NOT publically owned).
2) they could get the kids into gov’t schools earlier in order to indoctrinate them.

In the case of the USA, the end of the Republic is PLANNED, by a small elite, who intend to implement and profit wildly from a one-world gov’t. This is not a conspiracy “theory”. David Rockerfeller (among others) is ON RECORD declaring that intention, he belives that nation-states are obsolete.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
oddsock November 6, 2011 at 11:27

Joe

With respect. Myself and many others have tried our best to point out all these facts to the Americans and for a long time. You will find most are either still fast asleep or starting chanting the star spangled banner and how their constitution will save them and urge others to vote republican or democrat. It is breath taking to view, sometimes leaving one almost speachless. Failing that, you will be attacked for bashing America or hating them etc. Their brainwashing is stunning totally stunning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
joe November 6, 2011 at 11:36

@Oddsock – hence my posting a film by Aarron Russo, a well respected American film maker, who created a documentary by Americans, for Americans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Boxer November 6, 2011 at 11:51

Keyster jibbers:

Defeat liberalism and minimize the influence of the Democratic Party, and you strike down the political and judicial influence of feminism.

Of course. Everyone at the Spearhead needs to quit. Quit writing, quit thinking. Keyster has decreed that all we really need to do is to vote Republican, and all the problems men face in our society will vanish immediately.

The reality is that people who shill for conservatism are usually on the low end of both the intelligence and economic bell curves. Ever see those pot-gutted, half-literate tea partiers? They live in trailer parks, and spend their free time shilling for millionaires who hate them.

Being a conservative in modern America is pretty much synonymous with being a white knight. Keyster wants us all to quit posting here, and head over to Glenn Beck’s blog and white knight for the millionaire crowd.

http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/11/04/matt-taibbi-bitchslaps-conservatives-and-liebertarians/

It’s the same mentality. A white knight who vociferously defends a woman who will not have sex with him is the same animal as a conservative who whines about “libruls” all day, on behalf of the wealthy, who mock and scoff at him, and who wouldn’t spit in his mouth if he was dying of thirst. Laughable and pathetic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12
Boxer November 6, 2011 at 12:01

Hey DCM:

I have Jung’s Collected Works in my library. It sounds like stuff he woulda said. I think, though, that your specific examples may have started with Freud in Totem & Taboo. These themes were favourites of his, extending through Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Future of an Illusion, Civilization and it’s Discontents, and culminating in Moses & Monotheism. Check that last volume out if you get a chance sometime. Uncles Sig and Carl did not hold Judaism or Christianity in very high esteem and they had plenty to say about the nature of the feminine too.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for raising the intelligence level of the discussion around here.

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6
oddsock November 6, 2011 at 12:38

Joe

Yes, all that has been tried. The usual response is to call you a conspiracy nut job. Most Americans refuse point blank to even watch overwhelming evidence. IMHO it is the male rationalization hamster we often mock feminists about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Just Some Canadian November 6, 2011 at 12:47

What is it with you boys?

Everything bad that has happened is always the fault of feminism? No, seriously, not everything is.

Imperial Rome spun apart due to hundreds of causes, not the least of which was that it was a dynastic empire with no sustainable succession after the Julio-Claudian period. After that, it was nothing other than a succession of strongmen sitting atop a throne of bayonets.

That’s it. End of story. Andrea Dworkin is not to blame.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 15
joe November 6, 2011 at 13:10

Hey, as far as I’m concerned if just 1 in 100 people read any-given-post-that-points-to-the-facts actually go on to read / listen / watch the material, do the research and realize the truth? Well, that’s a win.

(If extrapolated worldwide 1% = 70,000,000 people).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 69 November 6, 2011 at 15:31

I am one of the most conservative conservatives you are going to meet. I have been fighting feminism since it started in the 60′s. You accusations against all conservatives is pure ignorance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
gender foreigner November 6, 2011 at 15:54

Dear Anonymous age 69 November 6, 2011 at 15:31:

Thank you for your submission. I am very conservative myself, very much more than those who claim to be by way of label, but whose description defies their outward claims.

In the frauenreich of Canada, ALL political parties are Feminist, no exception.

As a conservative, I acknowledge that those who claim (and movements which claim) to be conservative really aren’t. In their essence, liberals and conservatives are much the same, especially as per gender issues.

I appreciate VERY MUCH that you have been fighting the Feminist problem for so many decades. I wish all, “conservatives” were much much more like you.

Again, thank you for your submission, Anonymous age 69.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
rmaxd November 6, 2011 at 15:57

Yes, there are very few REAL conservatives around …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
universe November 6, 2011 at 16:59

Eventually our utopian multi-culti “melting pot” will divide into Little Mexico in the southwest, Leftistville on the coasts, little pockets of lingering afros hither and yon, and gun toting, bible clinging crackers to the northern mountian areas. We’re already identifying states as Red and Blue, so it’s just a matter of time.

– And possibly, quite possibly, a small powerful cadre of the similarly minded (socialist Billionaire and U.N. bureaucrat alike) have furrowed themselves behind the scenes within the doctrine of freedom, to hasten along expanding the scale of barnyard politics. However, if clan allegiances emerge strongly as a consequence to sub-dividing the farm we may have bloodshed in our midsts.
(No matter, just send in the global police force to smooth it all out, right?).
All in the name of business and trade for respective nations’ uber-wealthy. Keep wages and production costs down by migrating popular successful consumer driven industry to areas with lower scales of economy.

Question:If multiculturalism is indeed a suicide pill(and it likely is), why on Earth do any nation’s leaders favor it???

– Yes. Why, indeed?
I would wager to guess: Which national em>political/social leader could deviate from the uber-plan and survive? War, by some fashion, would be declared upon them and who they represent.
First, allow human traffic to settle anywhere to sever personal or familial allegiances to nation states. They’re easier to plunder for industrial purposes.
Then the socially minded “we are the world” crowd (another, albeit larger minority) get to manage the labour of divided masses with beguiling socialized and fractured state-ism. When the regional state(s) fail another on-paper efficient governance factor emerges. (But on a much larger scale).
We then may have more bloodshed in our midsts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Firepower November 6, 2011 at 19:32

oddsock

Myself and many others have tried our best to point out all these facts to the Americans and for a long time. You will find most are either still fast asleep or starting chanting the star spangled banner

If you Brits can’t get your own countrymen to take action, it is rather best to point out Americans’ faults.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6
evilwhitemalempire November 6, 2011 at 19:53

gender foreigner

The Nazi men were wimps. They could not stand up to women.

**********

I think you might be right. Most head Nazis, particularly Hitler and Himmler, hardly matched their own ayrian ideals (at least physically).

I reckon that the difference is that they were aware of what they were and tried to change it. Not in themselves but in the country with eugenics.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
E November 7, 2011 at 01:15

joe

In the case of the USA, the end of the Republic is PLANNED, by a small elite, who intend to implement and profit wildly from a one-world gov’t. This is not a conspiracy “theory”. David Rockerfeller (among others) is ON RECORD declaring that intention, he belives that nation-states are obsolete.

Within the Star Trek universe people no longer have debates about which is the best ideology. No longer is there a debate between liberalism vs. conservatism or communism vs. capitalism or any other type of “-ism”. That’s because humanity had found, the perfect, social economic policy or the closest thing to perfection humanly possible. While the TV show never explicitly stated what this ideology is, anybody can pick up on the clues and figure out that Star Trek is a social welfare, multiculturalism, Liberal’s wet dream.

One of the key points to Liberalism is of course a centralized one-world government. The idea will fail of course, that’s because humans are biologically wired to be tribal. We like to think in terms of us vs. them and this often breaks along racial lines. Humans will never become racially colorblind. I’m not concerned with the Liberal one-world gov’t fantasy. That idea has no chance. It will fall over under it’s own weight without anyone having to put any effort into pushing it over.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
joe November 7, 2011 at 04:41

@Firepower – if you wanted to wake up a people to freedom, and to maximise the effect of your message, which nation would you address your points to:

The USA, a Republic about 200 years old, a nation of 300,000,000 founded by a War of Independence conducted by those who were previously civilian, against a foreign monarchial tyranny, with principles of freedom enshrined in a Constitution and Bill of Rights. A nation where a great many people are still formidably armed (there being, as I recall, more guns in civilian hands than there are people in the USA). A nation where a great many people are already working very, very hard both on the fringes (e.g. Alex Jones) and in the mainstream (e.g. Ron Paul) to wake people up to the tyranny that grasps at them….

OR

The Unfree Kingdom, a monarchy based on a thousand year long Norman Reich, a nation about of about 60,000,000 people (the English) who since 1066 have NEVER had a ruler from their own tribe. Where the vast majority are convinced there is chronic overcrowding, despite 85% of the land being rural and free of buildings. Where the vast majority remain ignorant that about 50% of the landmass is owned by the same 6,000 odd people who are / trace their ancestry to the aristocrat caste. Where the people moved grumbling but with only minor / ineffective rebellions from serfdom to industrial wage slavery / cannon fodder and then to post-industrial drone / tax-cows. Except for the English Civil War, when they managed to install the miserable Puritans in power, who made life so shitty, the English asked for a King again. A nation which over the last 100 years has been deliberately and progressively disarmed to the point that there are only about 2,000,000 legally held (mostly shot)guns in the UK. A nation whose Monarch effectively signed over huge chunks of sovereignty to the EU, and despite the subsequent lawful petition of 25 Barons against this treason, ten years ago now, remains as deep in the EU as ever – with no sign that the populace at large are about to rise up in lawful rebellion (as is their Right under the terms of the Magna Carta, England’s foundational legal document).

Not to mention that the vast majority of posters and readers on the Spearhead are Americans.

Now, you tell me Firepower – of those two nations, which one do you think has greater hope of the people waking the fuck up and seizing their freedoms? Which therefore is it more efficient to address?

(Also, on the grounds that when America sneezes Britain catches a cold – if a fire of freedom caught in the USA, that’d probably have a very powerful effect over here. Moreso than any direct argument addressed to our local sheeple, because fuck knows it’s been tried.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
joe November 7, 2011 at 04:48

@ E – your mistake is to imagine that One World Order aims at peace. No, it aims at eternal war / unrest / terrorism. There are VAST profits for the rulers when tribes fight. The banksters made enormous sums from BOTH sides in WWII.

Tribalism is terrifically useful to the OWO bastards.

It’s called Divide and Conquer. Oldest trick in the book.

I strongly recommend you read Orwell’s 1984.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
BeijaFlor November 7, 2011 at 05:52

Thank you, Charles Martel, for the link to The Fate Of Empires. For those who haven’t read it, this is a short read (25 pages) but very comprehensive. And not very cheering …

The author, Sir John Glubb, has obviously read Gibbon – and much more of the world’s history. He reckons the “average length of national greatness” as 250 years, and has a table of examples that support that reckoning – plus he gives examples that chill me, when I look at the world today.

According to his assertions and evidence, we are ripe for the plucking. In fact, I fear we are already getting “plucked over.” Sauve qui peut.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Ken November 7, 2011 at 06:24

Regarding Christianity’s contribution to Rome’s gradual collapse…
What better poison pill than to inject a pacifist version of a non-pagan religion to further SAP the inner strength of a Pagan nation and culture? It’s useful for the nation-wreckers of today as well…when we see Mike Huckabee and crew standing shoulder to shoulder with feminists holding the “protect women/ tax the men” banner.
“Et Tu Brute’?” :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Firepower November 7, 2011 at 06:49

joe

@Firepower – if you wanted to wake up a people to freedom, and to maximise the effect of your message, which nation would you address your points to:

You’re right. If I were british, I’d call Americans stupid and rip on the Star Spangled Banner. That would “maximise” the effect of me message at the centre so I could affect behaviour.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8
Taxi Driver November 7, 2011 at 07:31

EW raises some interesting points. The ability to minimise religious warfare by equating gods with different names was derived largely from the Greeks, especially Plato. What was important was not the statue or temple but the Idea each god represented. These were described by Varro and St. Augustine as natural idols.

Christianity spread quickly because most Romans had by then lost faith not only in the traditional civic gods, but also in the Ideas of Platonism. The early Christians rejected both and would die rather than make any sacrifices to these false gods. Kinda like how most of us here have apparently rejected the modern false idols called Equality, and Diversity. Sacrifices to the Platonic idols never work and often produce the opposite of the desired effect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Firepower November 7, 2011 at 10:20

Elusive Wapiti

The Book: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon

The Gist: This was a massive, and I mean massive, set of books that chronicled several centuries of the Roman Empire

If you think I hate you, ew – you’re mistaken.

But, posting a long, cogent article here about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is like reading to cats.

Now, maybe if you wrote about PlayStation’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Game, you’d get some salient discussion. Just focus on the gory combat, Legionnaire Zombies and Hannibal Barca Lector Mages and we’ll see some action.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7
joe November 7, 2011 at 15:08

@Firepower – as I have NOT called Americans” stupid” NOR “ripped on the star spangled banner” – it seems you are having an argument with yourself. You have fun with that, now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Firepower November 7, 2011 at 15:35

joe

@Firepower – as I have NOT called Americans” stupid” NOR “ripped on the star spangled banner”

Easy, there tiger. The reference was to one of your stalwart countrymen’s posts:

oddsod

Myself and many others have tried our best to point out all these facts to the Americans and for a long time. You will find most are either still fast asleep or starting chanting the star spangled banner

You brits do know that in addition to hamburgers, and Kim Kardashian, we love having facts pointed out to us by brits – and those rascally inferences to our National Anthem.

Follow along.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
DCM November 7, 2011 at 17:07

“Firepower November 7, 2011 at 15:35
………..we love having facts pointed out ……….”

I find it hard to believe that you do. You seem to exist in a rarefied aura somewhere.
I only wish your fantasies were more interesting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: