oppose globalism

> oppose globalism

> romanticize the Roman Empire

Why oppose one and praise the other?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_(Italic_tribe)#Origins
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

Rome fell because of multiculturalism. How new are you?

They were conquerors.
How retarded are you?
Rome did not fall from le multiculturalism meme, any historian would rip you apart in any way regarding the cultures within the Roman empire or rather the one dominant "culture".
Rome was successful because it INTEGRATED people they took over stop making history fit your narrative you fag.

What do you expect when they invaded a multitude of cultures?

Globalism: taking strong cultures and making them weak through importing inferior races.

Imperialism: conquering weak cultures because you the strong culture. Strong cultures cooperate until one shows weakness, then they fight and the stronger culture prevails.

Roman Empire != Globalism

Culture=Army
Nice... Greeks were much more interesting and in their timespan and more influential philosophers than Rome yet they were conquered.
Romans even stole the Greek Gods, it's taking the good parts away from other cultures to create a fucking UBER culture.

They imported a bunch of foreign workers who had no loyalty to the values of their society because their own people got lazy and had the ability to pay these foreigners to do shit they didn't want to. Foreigners breed, get political influence, the rest is history.

This is why the Romans had the right idea about killing or chasing away the people they conquered. It's when they invited them back in that the problems started.

> This is why the Romans had the right idea about killing or chasing away the people they conquered. It's when they invited them back in that the problems started.

And now you oppose the same way of thinking with modern globalism, why?

The Romans were Greeks who migrated. And the Greeks WERE a strong culture, but got weak. And yes, your army is representative of your culture. If you have people who believe in what they fight for AND you have the means to keep them fit for fighting AND you have the ability to create better technology for fighting your wars AND you have the intelligence to plan and fight better, you're most likely coming from a stronger culture.

>They imported a bunch of foreign workers who had no loyalty to the values of their society because their own people got lazy and had the ability to pay these foreigners to do shit they didn't want to. Foreigners breed, get political influence, the rest is history.
The fucking ignorance in this comment makes me want to kill myself.
I literally don't even want to start with you, literally watch any documentary on the politics of Rome and you would know that ONLY Romans would dictate policies or would lead armies.

Even the Senate was full of "Ethnic" Romans.

Literally what? Are you saying I am against the Muslims chasing out Euros? Because I think they have the inferior culture, but Europe is too afraid to fight back. That makes them a weaker culture, and Imperialism states that they should be conquered. I'm not somehow surprised at this, I'm just disappointed that Europe forgot what it meant to be human. They are cattle, and they will be slaughtered as such. But that's the rules of the game, if you have the better culture you have to act like it, or else you're just a shitty culture.

This is grade six tier man, yes the Romans came from Greece but they did not fucking take over "GREEK" culture.
People love to talk about how the Romans adopted Greek culture, histiography, and religion from about 350 BCE on. They were taking from the Etruscan's mostly.
Just look at Roman burial sites.
Are you retarded?

The HRE wasn't about banding together as an economic power, it was about completely destroying all surrounding lands and taking their people as slaves. Know the difference between imperialism and globalism.

>ONLY Romans would dictate policies or would lead armies.
*only Roman citizens, and Caracalla had extended the citizenship to pretty much every free man in the Empire, so you could end up with someone like Maximinus Thrax becoming emperor even though he was a barbarian, and even before that some were given the citizenship and powerful positions within the army, like Arminus.
>The fucking ignorance in this comment makes me want to kill myself.
Same

Because white globalism is spreading beauty and civilization throughout the earth, Jewish globalism is spreading filth and destroying civilizations.

>muh multiculturalism ended rome

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire

>ctrl f
>multiculturalism
>zero results
>immigration
>zero results

B-but jews
b-but wikipedia

grasping at straws pol.. really sad stuff.

>romans were greeks
>source my ass

>Roman Empire
>global
wew lad

>The Romans were Greeks who migrated
You shouldn't take the Aeneid as a historical source
>And the Greeks WERE a strong culture, but got weak
Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, you stupid nigger

is it wrong to love and appreciate all white cultures? this is what i thought when they fried my brain with multiculturalism. everyone was white but different background. it was cool. then the tide changed and suddenly every city centre was chink poo mudslime nigger and a few poor whites with different degrees of addition problems

>oppose globaliziation
>love rome

You do realize the reason Rome reached the heights it did is because their policy of independence and self governance (of course this varied with different peoples throughout the history of the empire) correct?

its a well know historical fact that multi-cultural societies eventually collapse. look at yugoslavia, the ottoman empire, austra-hungary. endless revolts in the global empire tore it apart internally, weakening it enough for foreign barbarians to finish the job. its also a wel know fact that gemran immigrants didn't integrate into the roman empire, they were mercenaries with no loyalty who were utilized by every ambitious general to try and take the throne of emperor. so endless civil wars facilitated by german mercenary immigrants, plus an empire divided by culture.

>the Romans came from Greece
According to legend, they came from Troy, but they were an italic tribe on the border (and at first part of) Etruria. The greek city states were somewhat to the South, so Rome was in a buffer zone between two mighty powers.

>yes the Romans came from Greece
No they didn't, they were a Latin people that (most likely) came from Central Europe with all the other Latins during the Bronze Age

semi tangent.

isnt the human race one of the more genetically homogenous species?, the Toba bottleneck removed so much of our diversity relative to other mammals.

we went down to something like 8,000 individuals or something?

>*only Roman citizens
So I wasn't wrong at all.
Romans are literally roman citizens doesn't matter what fucking tribe they're from or if their an ethnic "roman".

>Caracalla
You fucking spaghetti-fag that was near 100 AD and he WAS born in Gaul.
You had no part of the patrician tastes of le Romans.
This was also the time the Germans were attacking Rome he needed as much swords as he could get.
The historical figures are quite hazy and biased.
So you're telling me even if America was 100% white it wouldn't survive because it's a mix of Irish,Anglos and Germans.
Yugoslavia
Could've easily been sustained by Serbcucks chimped out.
>Austria-Hungary
Was aight (foreign powers)
>Ottoman Empire
You don't fuck with Arabs plus the Janissary problem was the start of a large downfall.
Ataturk was too late.

Not even close.

Julius Caesar
Marcus Auerlius
Cicero
Augustus Caesar

And if you knew anything about ancient history and ancient rome, romans did not steal the greek gods, that was the nature of the roman pantheon of beliefs.

For every people they conquered they alsbo absorbed a bit of their customs and gods, and paid tribute to their gods.

They did with the estrucans
and the cambrians
and boii
and suebi
and belgae
and celto-iberians
and carthagians
and bedouins
and greeks
and illyrians
and dacians
and thracians
and gauls

etc.

fuck off shitbrains

US survived because all European cultures were assimilated. has they retained their identity the US would have been in trouble. yugoslavia, austria-hungary and ottoman empire were all unstable, just waiting for a strong wind to blow the rotten structure down

Greek settlements were prevalent in Southern Italy and Sicily and the Roman took from the Etruscan culture mostly will Greek Gods and such.
Mix of both that evolved over time to make a distinct culture.

Globalism!=Imperialism.
Remember the Nazis were imperialist too.

>So I wasn't wrong at all.
Fuck off you backpedaling leaf, first you say that foreigners had no political role in the Roman Empire and then you say that it was your point all along?
>You fucking spaghetti-fag that was near 100 AD and he WAS born in Gaul.
Sure, from a Roman/Punic family

Listen my father is from Yugoslavia, you know how easy it would be to cement the Southern Slavs?
It was just nationalistic shit for brains who wanted "Greater Serbia" or just individual power.
You've made no point with your "argument".

youre arguing assimilation is stealing bucko

frig off

None of that means that Romans came from Greece

Duh. Because of it being the birthplace of western civilization/culture

Because Sup Forums is full of unrepentant hypocrites.

>The Romans were Greeks who migrated

This is unlikely. The Romans didn't speak Greek. There was probably a lot of intermixing though which would explain the near-identical religious, cultural, and political practices.

If you were born in America you'd most likely have American "Culture" stupid.
Ethnic lines mean nothing here.
Is it not?
I thought le assimilation was terrible and the end of the white race.
I'll look for a source to dispute that claim.
This!
I actually prefer what you said Romans and Greeks are not identical but very closely related.

>near-identical religious, cultural, and political practices
That's wrong tho, Roman and Greek ancestral religion and culture only share the common Indoeuropean background, and their political practices were completely different.
>If you were born in America you'd most likely have American "Culture" stupid.
So, you believe that Caracalla had a Gallic culture even though he was born in a Roman family, lived in a Roman colony? That's like saying that George Washington had an Amerindian culture
>I'll look for a source to dispute that claim.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_(Italic_tribe)#Origins
Feel free to follow the citation links, or just any history book written after the XVI century

>That's wrong tho, Roman and Greek ancestral religion and culture only share the common Indoeuropean background, and their political practices were completely different.

Zeus was Jupiter, Hera was Juno, Athena was Minerva etc. I'm not super educated on the subject but common knowledge is that they were ideantical in function and worship, just latin names. And early Rome was a Republic which is very similar to a democracy. Roman architecture was nearly identical to that of hellenistic and classical greek architecture. There's too many similarities like that.

you mean jewish capitalism

Refer to this post, are you serious the similarities are canny.
Also faggot i'm going to Croatia should I go to Venice I heard their is a lot of niggers and everything is expensive.
vvvvv

You fucking troglodyte you're acting so superior but your grasp of history is way off base and at best surface level

The guy you're arguing with is right, a large part of rome's fall was the fact that army was mostly composed of german mercenaries that had no stake in the continuation of the state, they overthrew rulers and supported others solely based on their own personal gain and this directly contributed to the chaos that bled the empire from within.

Also:
>ONLY Romans would dictate policies or would lead armies

Odacer would like to have a word with you...
You know the guy who deposed the last Western Roman Emperor, yeah he was a goth, and before he seized Italy was an officer in the Roman Military

And if that's not enough for you how about Stilicho, the Visigoth who for many years was the true power behind the throne of the western emperor at the turn of the 5th century?

This is primo bait, good work user.

>, they overthrew rulers and supported others solely based on their own personal gain and this directly contributed to the chaos that bled the empire from within.
We are talking about different eras you mong, a large part of Rome's fall was decentralization and near the end Christianity vs Paganism.
Yes, they relied much too more on mercenaries.
Their fault for not assimilating the Gaulish tribes more effectively.

>Zeus was Jupiter, Hera was Juno, Athena was Minerva etc
Sure, because they come from the same Indoeuropean ancestral deities whose parallels are found among pretty much every Indoeuropean people
>common knowledge is that they were ideantical in function and worship
That's only after Romans purposefully Greekified their own religious practices
>And early Rome was a Republic which is very similar to a democracy
Democracy was pretty much a phenomenon limited to a short historical phase in Athens, most Greek cities were ruled by tyrants or restricted councils
>Roman architecture was nearly identical to that of hellenistic and classical greek architecture
Wrong, Roman architecture used the arch, which was not used in Hellenistic architecture, ad their construction techniques and philosophies were radically different. Like everything else, there was a strong syncretism with the two, which ended up being almost indistinguishable.
A good example is pic related: the dome and arch are Roman elements, the columns and tympanum are Greek, but the overall structure (which is heavy and "square") is still Roman
All these things were a result of Roman conquest of Greece opening the Romans up to Greek culture, which was much more advanced than Roman one.
And again, there is no genetic, linguistic or historical basis for your claim.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say your history is off base:
>Their fault for not assimilating the Gaulish tribes more effectively

The Gaulish tribes didnt bring the end to the Roman empire they had all been roman citizens for centuries by the fall in the 5th century, it was the germans

The Gaulish tribes were assimilated in fact their culture was brutally crushed and pretty much all traces of it were destroyed with the exception of some religion stuff
The germanic tribes on the other hand overwhelmed the roman state when they moved into empire as refugees fleeing from both the Huns and climate conditions that were causing scarcity of food in the north

They came in so large number the Romans had no way to break apart and repress their independent institutions they brought with them they quite literally could not be assimilated because they weren't entering someone else's country, they were bringing their country with them

That's not entierly correct. In origin they were different gods in similar roles, but later they were merged and identified.

The greeks did it too, pic related, Ephesian Artemis, merged from the greek Artemis and an Anatolian nature goddess.

>We are talking about different eras you mong, a large part of Rome's fall was decentralization and near the end Christianity vs Paganism

Also no we are not, we're talking about the fall of Rome I was directly referencing the crisis of the third century, and the occasional assassinations that took place from the 4th to 5th centuries spawned by newly appointed Emperors gifting royal dues to those that had assassinated the previous emperors

These had the unfortunate side effect of draining the imperial treasury as well as the chaos of these ensuing civil wars causing most the major social and structural problems that would plague the empire in its final years. You even mention the decentralization which itself was a consequence of both the many different invasions that put pressure on the roman state, and the internal civil strife that had ripped the government apart and had itself never fully healed

>taking land through sneaky schemes and political tricks
>taking land through sheer force and superiority

Modern globalisation is the playground of rich, immoral, cowardly elite, who think they can just push pieces on a board and claim the whole world without any risk to themselves. At least previous Empires fought for what they won.

basically Rome was a bunch of black/brown curly haired Caucasian Space Marines that allowed the integration of the lesser Imperial Guard and civilians of various backgrounds. Space Marine culture and might is what made Rome great, while the rest of the population made them expansive or large. you simply cannot control that large an area with only a handful of good noble and warrior blood and the majority of lesser citizens eventually collapsed unto themselves while the Space Marines lost the inner war of attrition due to their numbers being so low, then corruption by the lessers that leaked into nobility lead to rebellious acts until Rome died

Better go a little further south into Montenegro.

The city of Kotor with it's medieval old center is astounding and still a hidden gem.

ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt

Ignorance

Leafs are fucking disgusting

He's a leaf, friend

Roman empire wasnt jewish

Its a double edged sword.

Rome rose up in the first place through some multiculturalism. Then fell from mass illegal-immigration (Made of up of a lot of military aged men brandishing weapons go figure)

It seems that multiculturalism can help a young civilization that doesn't actually have much culture yet ('murica) and then starts to cause problems when civilization has been established and later waves of new cultures down the line decide they'd prefer their brand to be dominant over it. ('murica)

Starting to understand why everyone compared their country to Rome. It's a cautionary tale. Doesn't help that our government is modeled slightly around their Republic.

You're totally right, empires fucking suck. When a powerful group of people with the right ideas on how civilization should be carried out overtakes another pathetic one, the conquering civ must make compromises to better manage the territory. Even when you win, the many subcultures will find a way to erode the laws culture of the father culture. Hell, even the war-tax on the native-born Romans becomes too great and they'll bail if the price of being a roman citizen is too steep. Then a bunch of Germanic tribes take you over.

We are being told that the west has no culture so there's nothing to spread. Romans on the other hand believed in their civilization and its might.

...

One can admire the accomplishments of something without necessarily agreeing with the intention.

The Vikings have much to be admired, but really, do you approve of raping and pillaging other White people?

The Spartans have much to respect, but do you approve of slavery?

Even the Jews have much to be respected. Does that mean you have to like and support them?

Learning to detach from your personal biases in order to form objective opinions within particular contexts and learn from others is a valuable skill to acquire.
It takes discipline, but when you attain it, you will have the advantage over those who do not.