Below is the first in a series of essays on the fall of Rome by our Dutch correspondent H. Numan.
How long before the Dark Ages return?
Part 1
by H. Numan
No doubt you are familiar with the term the Dark Ages. This was the chaotic period following the fall of the Roman empire. Most historians place this period from 476 AD, the official fall of Rome, until the crowning of Charlemagne in 800 AD. Nowadays you’re not supposed to use that term anymore. It wasn’t dark at all. Merely total chaos and absolute anarchy ruled, and in only Western Europe. That’s cultural Marxism at work: pretending something didn’t really happen or wasn’t half as bad.
We are on the brink of new Dark Ages. It’s interesting to see how that came to be the last time. He who doesn’t learn from history is doomed to do it again. But never the same way, for history never repeats itself the same way.
West — East
The Roman empire split in two parts: the Western empire and the Eastern empire. The Eastern empire evolved into the Byzantine empire. The Western empire fell. We’re not going to look why it split, that’s outside the scope of this essay. Both empires were under constant attack from barbarians outside. The Western empire by Germanic tribes, Goths and Huns. The Eastern empire by Huns, Germanic tribes, Sassanids and many more. Both empires had to use all resources they had to defend themselves. One fell, the other didn’t.
Did Rome fall in 476 AD? Not really. Rome had been besieged and plundered a couple of times before. Parts of its empire were taken by barbarian tribes, reconquered, lost again and retaken before they were permanently lost. The 476 AD date was just a nice date, fairly accurate and easy to remember. In the end, and that is well before 476 AD, the Western empire had shrunk to bits of Italy. Everything else was taken over by the Goths, Germanic tribes, Burgundians and others. For convenience’s sake I’ll call them all barbarians. I’ll explain that term a little further in this article.
How did that came to be? Why did the Western empire fall, and the Eastern empire survive? Well, the Eastern empire had the good fortune to be centered around the most strategic city in the world: Constantinople, millennia later renamed as Istanbul. Constantinople was very easy to defend. It is surrounded on three sides by sea and the other side had the strongest walls in the world. During the next 750 years Constantinople was besieged many times, but never taken. Rome, on the other hand, was not strategically located. It was still a very big city, but the government had moved to Ravenna, which was located somewhat better strategically and was easier to defend. If you don’t mind malaria, that is. Because part of its defenses were the surrounding marshes. That is one of the reasons why the Byzantine empire survived and the Western empire fell.
The Roman army
I think most readers are familiar with the Roman army. Only that famous army hadn’t existed anymore for well over 200 years. To become legionary, one had to be Roman citizen. If you weren’t, you could join the auxiliarii, the auxiliary troops. After serving honorably, you’d get a discharge bonus and Roman citizenship. Your son could become a real legionary, and most did. Pay was better in the legions, and service was shorter. In the early days of the empire, this was very attractive. During the later empire much less so, as by that time almost everybody had Roman citizenship. Barbarians were more than welcome to serve in the auxiliary; entire Germanic kingdoms (outside the empire) ran their economy by farming out their warriors as auxiliarii.
The difference between the legionarii and auxiliarii was large. It’s also quite important to know why, to understand why the Roman empire eventually fell. Not as the reason, but one of the reasons.
The legions were heavy infantry, fighting in close-order formation. The auxiliary troops were everything else, and they fought usually in open order formation. Heavy infantry is exactly that: heavy. Armour and equipment easily weighed in at +35 kg. Training was daily and gruesome. Every month at least three road marches of +80km in full gear were on the agenda. The remainder legionary spent a lot on the assault course, and training with weapons in full armor. That’s a whole lot tougher than what I had to do. The heavy equipment and continuous training were absolutely necessary to fight in close-order formations. You have first to learn it, and once you’ve mastered it, keep it up. Until you retire. Which, for a legionary, was after 25 years. Discipline was by necessity brutal.
The auxiliary didn’t exactly loaf around not doing much. Their usual formations were open order, and that requires much less training and (because of that) much less discipline, and far lighter equipment.
As you very well can understand, the legions weren’t exactly happy to see the auxiliary loafing around on a daily basis. Every day they were training their rear ends off under vicious centurions, while the auxiliary looked like he was having a holiday. The legions complained. Loudly, and often. Slowly the top brass gave in. Little by little. First the heavy helmet was replaced by a lighter version. Next to go was the large heavy shield. Replaced by a shorter and lighter shield. To compensate, the short stabbing sword (gladius) was replaced by a much larger slashing sword (spatha). The throwing pilum — a legionary carried always three of them — was replaced by a single stabbing spear. Which automatically changed the style from close order fighting into open order fighting. Slowly the legions merged into auxiliary. There was no difference anymore. Some legions kept the old famous name alive for a long time, but their great-grandfathers wouldn’t have recognized them.
Demographic changes
Not only the army changed; so did society. First of all, the late Roman Empire (West and East) suffered from severe plague epidemics, depopulating entire areas. The available manpower for the army simply wasn’t there anymore. Another major change was the advent of Christianity. Certainly in the beginning of Christianity, serving in the army was out of the question. When the religion became the state religion, pacifist ideas were quickly forgotten. However, serving in the army wasn’t exactly what you wanted to do as a Christian. It was much easier, far more comfortable and a lot more prestigious to build your career in the church. The army was out, the church was in. Poor boys weren’t available for military service, and rich boys didn’t fancy it.
That meant that almost all senior officers now were barbarians as well. The auxiliary had always fought under their own chieftains, but as junior officers only. Now those barbarian chieftains became field and general officers. In the past all field and general officers had always been Romans. Not any more. Romans much preferred a career in the church. You’d pray a lot, sure. But you didn’t have to do road marches and the assault course. There was very little risk, the food was excellent and career possibilities limitless.
Barbarians
What’s a barbarian? Someone who isn’t a Roman. That’s all. Forget our notion of a smelly hairy man clothed in animal skins wielding a club. Some did, no doubt. A barbarian was (usually) a Germanic tribesman. Most tribal leaders spoke some Latin as second language, wore normal clothes and wanted nothing more than to become real Romans themselves. They fit the bill exactly for a multicultural society: as long as you act like a Roman, think as a Roman, dress like a Roman, you are a Roman. Many of those barbarian leaders intermarried with Roman wives. In the eyes of most Romans — certainly the elite — they simply were Romans. The problem is that once more non-Roman Romans became Roman, the less Roman they felt.
A good example is Flavius Stylicho. His dad was a Vandal, his mum a Roman. He became one of the ablest and most loyal generals of the late Roman Empire. Something like the mayor or Rotterdam today, Aboutaleb. But much more reliable, and without the very questionable religious ideology of Aboutaleb. Who is a very strict mohammedan, coming from a very strict mohammedan (muslim brotherhood) father. And is notoriously vague about his personal ideology.
A bad example is a colleague of Stylicho. His name was Alaric; he was a Visigoth. Him you could see as the forerunner of Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London. Sadiq is first and foremost a mohammedan, then a Marxist (disguised as ‘socialist’), and only after that British citizen. Both were ambitious cutthroats. Alaric also became a Roman general. Later he changed sides and became the Visigoth king who was the first barbarian to sack Rome. Whether Sadiq Khan will do the same, we have to wait and see. Not too long, I’m afraid.
It wasn’t a problem that the auxiliary fought under their own tribal leaders. They had always done that. However, once those tribal leaders became senior government officials, that was deadly. As captain (centurion) or colonel (tribune/legate), they could pilfer their unit’s funds, nothing more. As general they formed part of the government and consequently were able to pilfer state funds and change government policy to their advantage. Many did.
To translate this into our current problems: the 100% Turkish party Denk was elected to the Dutch parliament, with no fewer than three seats. They are very visible. Many more of the mohammedan persuasion are in parliament and are much less visible. Such as that nice moderate ‘Christian’ Democrat Mohammed El Isis or that friendly Labor member Hassan Al Qaeda. They have just as much to say as Denk does, but nobody notices them.
So why did the West Roman empire fall while the Byzantine empire did not? Because at the very last second (it was that close) a coup was staged within the Byzantine palace itself, under Marcianus. They murdered the barbarian leaders and took over command. A purely selfish act, I fully admit that. But it did save the empire in the nick of time. The lesson was learned. Hiring mercenaries, no problem. But never again as generals. That lesson came too late for the Western empire. It had already fallen.
The moral of this story is not simply to bar mohammedans from the army. In our society the armed forces are subjected to parliamentary control. In the Dutch parliament there are at least (haven’t counted them) 10 to 15 mohammedans. Roughly 10%. Those parliamentarians you can easily compare with Roman generals. In essence, they are the Roman equivalent. Those mohammedans in our parliament have access to the power of government; they influence policy, control legislation and decide how and what to fund with tax money.
Mohammedans think they will control our society within fifteen years. I think they’re a bit pessimistic. My estimate is much earlier. Probably within ten years. In the next episode I’ll go into that.
— H. Numan
Are you a University Professor? I hope so.
Couldn’t possibly be one. Like myself, he is well educated, but not welcome in the hallowed halls of academe which have totally given themselves over to PC. Or perhaps he is lying low and knows, but doesn’t teach the truth.
An interesting essay, but I’d point out a few factoids I think Mr. Numan leaves out. In the era he concerns himself with, there were no major weapons of mass destruction as there are today.
Currently, there is only one Muslim country with nuclear weapons, Pakistan. And they are short ranged and primitive. Iran is obviously working on them, but the West (or at least elements of it) could destroy all of Iran’s facilities and most of its economy with tactical nukes and JDAMs targeting not just the facilities but their ports and oil infrastructure. Iran has no real air force, which means they’re missing a vital component in war fighting, particularly in the ME region.
There are also countries like Russia and China with a long history of dealing with Muslim aggression and few scruples about doing so. China, aside from closing a heck of a lot of mosques has no passed a law against hijabs and ‘very noticeable and ostentatious’ beards.
America is also capable of dealing with this problem. Watch and see.
What I think is influencing Mr. Numan’s view is the conditions in Europe at this time. Being that he appears to be Dutch, that’s understandable. But while some countries could be affected by this, others won’t. The Visograd nations and their Baltic allies have decent militaries and will stand. I think France will too if Marine Le Pen pulls off a Trump. The UK is also showing signs of slowly waking up.
Germany and Sweden? If the Wests holds, they will not be allowed to survive as part of the Caliphate.
The biggest problem for Europe is Turkey, with the largest contemporary army in Europe. But Erdoğan has a lot of problems at home and abroad as well as a shaky economy.
He’s spot on, we have to keep Muslims out of government and the military. However, even the U.S. we can’t do that. Even if Trump did a EO forbidding Muslims in the military, the federal court would shoot it down. We are no allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion unless the religion in question is Christianity.
You’d think after Hassan’s rampage at Ft. Hood and all those blue on greed shootings in Afghanistan, we’d reevaluate recruiting Muslims. We didn’t.
The fact is our legal system is very much anti-Christian. You can be a public school teacher and teach the Shahada and prayer rituals and why Mohammed was their leader, take a tour of a mosque. With no outcry from the legal community. BUT if a teacher did something similar with Christianity, the MSM, ACLU, ADL, SPLC and DOJ would destroy the teacher and school within hours of getting wind of his/her deeds.
The way I see it, before we can confront Islam we have to do some serious and perhaps bloody housecleaning at home. Our legal system and most of our political parties no longer protects the American citizen nor the culture from whence our society came from. But instead is either indifferent or actively hostile towards the American citizen and his society.
Theoretically what you say wouldn’t happen, but practically they did. Your assertion about practical solution is logical. To at least theoretically reduce the bloodshed, we should always qualify liberty and freedom of speech. PARTIAL liberty, PARTIAL freedom of speech.
So, we already established that the Muslims have infiltrated the highest reaches of power. Then, we establish the precedent that freedom of speech can be legally limited. Whose freedom of speech do you think is most likely to be restricted?
Is Following the Prophet a project of spiritual faith, or an allegiance to a hostile foreign political interest?
I am comfortable that our very specific history with Islam precludes awarding Muhammadism protection under our First Amendment.
Should it really require a seven digit casualty list atrocity to be the smelling salts needed to recognize Islam’s immutable exceptionalism and honor it through expulsion?
How about subjecting all religions, including Islam, to regular laws? Muslims are already demanding public accommodations, which except for the observance of Christmas and Easter, Western religions do not. I don’t think having police informants will harm Christianity or Judaism very much, but it’s quite understandable why Muslims object to any public observation or reporting of their rituals.
Sure we can. Easy? No. Can? Yes.
there is not “keeping” them out of power. they are there and growing. it will take a full expose of the real Islam, as in broad daylight sun to expose them and remove them. i think there are only 3 avenues this could actually occur:
1) a full scale Christian repentance movement on a scale that would dwarf all other Christian revivals. A revival that actually changes the education establishment, corporations and government officials. Is it possible? Yes it is. With Jesus Christ, all things are possible.
2) stupidly impatient muslim clones will detonate a dirty bomb in a major place. and then we will have their idiotic confession “we did it”. Perhaps this could wake up the west. how sad that it needs come to that.
3) the governmental globalist leaders of the west (those who are secularists or atheistic) are actually going to rise up against Islam almost as a light turning on in dark room, and will wage civil war against Islam in every western country, all at the same time perhaps due to point #2 occuring as justification to the public. This will be intentional, swift and will be totally unexpected. This will bring a global government into reality …and this gets us into a possible realm of biblical prophecy quite quickly.
Apart from these three things, Islam is going to continue to advance with all pace and decisiveness and am afraid nothing is going to stand in their way because of the brainwashing of the west by marxist self loathing beliefs.
Aren’t you forgetting some things? What about a sweeping overhaul of the islamic religion? Maybe there’s a massive and/or potent amount of people there that don’t want it anymore. Maybe they just reason that it’s better to have no islam & still do some of the same things than it is to keep it around & have to worry about it?
Islam is closed. By its very laws and nature it has declared itself complete, as is.
Agreed,
As much as I once had arguments with Numan about atheism, and I am a Christian; I thank Numan for this explanation and Dutch (pre and post) election. I cannot check history book for this article, but the article makes sense. For Althea, writing this article doesn’t require the writer to be professor.
Bret:
You may have misinterpreted my comment. I meant it as a compliment. It would be a fine lecture.
I’m afraid that the article doesn’t make sense at all. See my reply below.
What you so entertainingly describe as the beginnings of the West goes sideways once you get to America. Its founders, grounded in the incessant bloodbaths of European history were determined to avoid those mistakes if they could. No hereditary aristocracy, no state church, and for some a strong belief in a limited foreign service so as to avoid “entanglements”…
…Even though English values prevailed, there was an admixture of Germans, Irish, Scots, and a strong French presence. You can even still see the Swedish tendency towards self-obliteration if you go to Minnesota, one of the few states still making “WELCOME” signs for Somali immigrants, even those who were born here and went off for adventures with ISIS before returning to that Little Somalia in the Midwest. And they have their sullen Muslim representative in Congress: an American black, formerly a Black Muslim but now claiming to be the real thing. He’s the deputy director of the DNC in Washington and a more unpleasant fellow you never saw.
The Left here is making strong EU-like inroads into American culture but despite owning all the microphones, we still managed to foil them by NOT electing Hillary Clinton.
It’s a touchy subject, but I believe that in the final analysis the strong strain of a rebellious and fervent bedrock Christianity will make the crucial difference here. Unlike Europe, America has not been emptied of transcendent meaning…we are not a better people, we simply chose differently. And that has made all the difference.
I saw a headline the other day in which the head of the EU openly threatens to destroy America. From whence comes the hatred?
Hence they chose one of their own elite to lead the revolution, become the first president, named the capitol after him, and later an entire state.
Transferring this into the Dutch situation: we name capitol Willemstad, and a province Willemsland.
Yup. Entirely different! 😀
But Washington was steadfast in his refusal to be crowned as a monarch and insisted on retiring. He came from a middle class/gentry situation and earned his living as a young man by surveying much of what is now Western Virginia. His early military career was quite uneven…
Washington D.C. was not the original capital. It was New York, which to this day retains its early Dutch mercantile DNA. The Dutch unwittingly gave up Manhattan for some Spice Islands, but their genius for business remains, no matter what the city is named.
BTW, a Frenchman designed Washington and it was W’s peers who saw the wisdom in making his name synonymous with the new country. Regular folk, e.g., the German farmers in the far reaches of western Virginia and Maryland were NOT pleased with the man when, as president, he mounted his horse and rode over there to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. To this day, the moonshiners can be found throughout the region. IOW, Washington the man and Washington the later capital, won the battle but they lost the war. You can’t keep those Germans and Scots-Irish in their place.
Let’s hear it for the Germans and the Scots-Irish. Winston Churchill once said that, “You can always count on the Americans – after they have tried everything else.” So having tried communism twice (once in the 17th century and again in BHO) we now have an entrepreneur in the WH.
Per both public school AND Christian school textbooks, Washington, D.C. was “designed” by Negro Benjamin Banneker. My older son’s edition of the same Christian textbook mentioned both names, but nine years later L’Enfante’s name was gone and only Banneker [who to my knowledge never traveled to France nor studied French landscape design] remained. All hail progress.
Sad, innit? What began as a good idea – i.e., recognizing the contributions blacks made to America (see the extensive wrought iron work in Charleston) has metastasized into an overweening, grandiose project. Reminds me of the Soviet claims for all Western inventions originating in Russia. We laughed then but we have to keep a straight face now or face being ostracized. I pick my battles. 32 genders is one I’m willing to fight, as is the fellow who is going to court to have the ‘right’ to be genderless.
The US is trying to revive the imperialist vibe but its pretty doomed. I recommend a book called “the rule of empires” by Tim parsons if you want to learn more.
Marxism.
I agree with you. Christianity needs to abandon the current “Love your enemies” predominant message it currently projects if it wishes to survive. Unfortunately before that can happen a great many Christians will have to die, because whether you like it or not “Love your enemies” is the predominant message of Jesus Christ (but fortunately it is not the only thing Jesus said). A “victim” or “martyr” is the name for such a culture which fails to act to defend itself in such a way. There are a lot of bible verses that support self defense, and support acting as champions of the faith, but they are seldom quoted. The message of Jesus abrogates a lot of these in the mind of most Christians. Also, I would like to apologize to the world for Keith Ellison, Mark Dayton, and Al Franken. They are a scourge upon humanity. There is a lot of Minnesotans like me who deeply regret the current state of affairs here.
Jesus instructed His disciples to make sure they carried a sword when they went on the road to preach the gospel. What was the intended purpose of that sword? For slicing their pastrami sandwiches?
Lacking the sword–they were to sell their cloak in order to get one.
(The lack of a warm cloak in the NIGHTIME DESERT is itself a life-threatening situation. Thus the sword–i.e. sidearm/carbine/pistol/whatever is essential in preserving one’s life……………………says the Lord.)
Hatred (self loathing) is the hallmark of leftism.
Self-loathing is a mental disease, ergo leftism is….
I believe the founding fathers were also very queasy on the idea of a standing army. Depending on local militias give a great deal of power to state governments, while the existence of a standing army tips the balance of federalism to the national government. Obama almost attacked the army of Syria over the supposed use of chemical weapons. If he had, Syria would be predominantly ISIS by now. Our dumb, neo-con Republicans, including our ambassador to the UN, don’t seem to realize you have to have a strongman government in the Middle Ease..or else, they simply want a pretense for deploying US troops.
If you read a book called “The Law of Civilization and Decay”, you will note one of the most regular points of deterioration of a civilization is the impoverishment of the small farmer and merchant, who make the backbone of any indigenous army.
https://www.amazon.com/Law-Civilization-Decay-Brooks-Adams/dp/1533262446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491164114&sr=8-1&keywords=law+of+civilization+and+decay
I’m waiting for part two but this is with complete bias and not very accurate. Empires are not sustainable anymore because imperialistic behaviour only works when you have an advantage over a subject nation. The romans kicked the crap out of everyone because they had an advantage and they lasted longer than most in occupied places because they integrated subjects into their society. That doesn’t work anymore and trying to make a comparison seems desperate at the least.
I disagree with your reference to the Romans ‘kicking the crap out of everyone’ due to their military dominance.
It wasn’t until the Roman Empire came about under Augustus that Roman expansion really took off, but the typical strategy when overwhelming one country after another was too offer the recognized leader of that subjugated country to become part of the Empire or be slave to it.
As they say in gangster movies, it was an offer to good to refuse that many subjugated leaders took to while the strategy used in such a process virtually eliminated a Roman Legion having to be garrisoned in the newly conquered land, the upkeep of which would have been a financial drain on Rome.
Roman expansion did not ‘take off ‘ under Augustus. The empire reached a size under Augustus that was almost its largest extent – almost but not quite.
Your point about Rome absorbing her enemies is a good one. It’s a shame Mr Numan forgets it when he talks wildly about barbarians overrunning the empire, as though it was a strange new occurrence – the Roman empire was *built* on barbarians.
Dude, The Romans lost every battle to Hannibal in Italy until Hannibal went home.
Try Googling Teutoburg Forest. Wipe-out buddy and that was under Tiberius.
Try ‘under Augustus’
Roman Army was my particular interest in Archaeology. Jan Le Bohec is very good on the imperial period. He breaks down numbers in population as well. Pay particular attention to the origins of the Gallo-Iberian novi- homines- New men. I think Emmet Scott too has it about right. The Archaeology seems to prove his theses that the West did recover somewhat. Sudden disappearance of cities across the Inner Sea from the coastal hinterland, on the eruption of Islam into the cocktail.
There is so much evidence that suggests that those Roman cities dotted along the coast of the Mediterranean survived the collapse of Rome only to be destroyed later by the vandalism of Islam.
I’m with Alaric. It was the Romans who invaded and conquered Germanic lands first. Even after Rome was finally dealt with, its lately found state religion proved a source for power grabs and new conflict. With the conversion of Chlodwig began its most serious campaign of violent conquest, reaching a climax with Charlemagne and many more later in history. The culture of our Germanic ancestors was not just suppressed, in the end it was annihilated. Until today, their memory is only painted through the eyes of their enemies. Sound familiar? Yes, history repeats itself. Not exactly the same way, but in rhymes.
British Moslems I speak to as part of my Church duties believe that 2023 is the year they control UK Government. I think they are optimistic as there will be a war before then. The stupid may not “get it” or comprehend but there are more than enough angry-increasingly so- that do understand and this is why Traitor May and Co are sucking up to Trump and splitting from Europe, because they know their idiocy is on the brink of collapse. The Neuter-men of London should not be judged as an example of pansified men. Where I live there are enough country yobbos to form a different opinion and many have served in the Gulf. One of my cadets to name but one that was saved from death by a cigarette tin I gave him on leaving the TA infantry.
Well, Bish, see you back here in 2023 and let’s see what’s happening then. You sound like a 17th century anglican worried about a RC takeover.
Ah, it appears that ignorance of your interlocutor’s background and philosophy (or theology, as the case may be) is no impediment to your jumping in with both feet, attempting to smash the front teeth of this particular opponent.
As in “fools rush in,” etc.
I’m not sure what background knowledge is relevant here. I was just responding to the words on the screen.
‘Fools rush in’ indeed.
Islam and “Leftism” are essentially the same animal… in as much as each is Authoritarian and recognises no individual as having worth.
The fact is that, Holland, France, England, Germany, the US … and a host of others … are predominantly populated by those of a “leftist” persuasion.
These are the people who demand”Standing Armies”, “Socialized Healthcare”, “Government Pensions”, “Fiat currency”.
If I just described YOU, then YOU are part of the problem; because it’s your insistence on Collective’ decision-making that has facilitated this State-sponsored immigration.
Europe’s problems are much, much deeper than Islam. It will reap the wages of “voting”.
I enjoyed the essay. Good job.
>> Mohammedans think they will control our society within fifteen years. I think they’re a bit pessimistic. My estimate is much earlier. Probably within ten years. In the next episode I’ll go into that.
I don’t think you’re right but I’m looking forward to your next essay to see you make your case.
Where to start? First, I, in no way claim to be any kind of expert on history, but from my own readings I cannot see the connections in this writing to any other evaluations I have read.
I certainly don’t see any justification to “blame” Muhammadism for the fall of the Roman Empire and, centuries later, entry into the “dark ages”. AD 476 is two centuries too early – at least.
The Roman “empire” fell for many reasons, likely the least of which was corruption in it’s governmental system: Famine, Drought, Disease, Transportation disruptions, Wars in far reaching areas, Economic overreach, Language barriers, Political infighting, Religious differences, Educational shortcomings; The list of causes is virtually endless.
Many of the problems that contributed to the “fall” are still issues today, but none of them is the key to something which we can look back at and say; This is why.
I see the moral presented, and do see a connection with commanding the military with “outsiders” as is mentioned, I just don’t see the translation from yesterday, into the world of today as a viable comparison.
Europe, and much of the “western” world is, today, being transformed into an alien society by politically driven intentional population replacement. Someone got it in their head that A + R = Z, and then convinced “authorities” that there was no other operational formula. The formula is simple; Any population MUST have a larger demographic of young people than old people, in order to survive and thrive. I don’t remember where I read it, but there is absolutely no reason to think that Germany cannot survive and thrive, with a total population of 50 million tomorrow, rather than the 80 million today. The problem is they are replacing the 30 million “pensioners” with 10 million Anti-Westerners. This is a recipe for disaster. The same goes for any Western Nation. We are all capable of operating perfectly well with smaller populations, in fact, it is designed that way. Muslimification is just a side-effect because the “replacement workers” are mostly Muhammadans.
Back to the subject of this essay. I do not see any connection between the fall of the Roman Empire (476), the subsequent Muhammad inspired “religiously” motivated land grab which caused the “dark ages” (700+), and the politically driven population replacement activities of today.
Yes, there is a coincidental connection in that the replacement population is overwhelmingly Muhammadan, but that is the only connection I can see with previous events.
Of course, this is all just my opinion.
“any connection between the fall of the Roman Empire (476), the subsequent Muhammad inspired “religiously” motivated land grab which caused the “dark ages” (700+), and the politically driven population replacement activities of today.”
No Islam had nothing to do with the fall of the western half. It was another replacement population, but the idea of an alien population IS THE SAME… And the Eastern (Byzantine)Empire held against the muslims for a thousand years.
Several things have caused the decline of the west since WWII. At the end of WWII the west- at least America- had won the greatest war in history and with no destruction to our homeland. Our army was all over stationed all over the world too.
But since then all other nations have been able to rebuild. Communism has been defeated. And we have a great number of old people, as you said. And corporate bosses don’t want to pay union wages so, in America, Mexicans do the hard work.
The generations born since WWII have had it so easy, that we’ve become kind of wimpy.
We are a late stage civilization and I don’t see anyway out.
If you look at Emmet Scott’s theses in his first book, you’ll find that he does indeed hold the Bedouin caravan-robbers-turned-pirates responsible for the beginning of the end of prosperity and diversity in the Mediterranean. Their unending raids along the coast, taking slaves in droves, sent the coastal populations into the more mountainous areas.
They killed literacy by invading Egypt and settling there. Being nomads, they let their flocks of goats and sheep eat everything, including wheat shoots and flax (for linen) and papyrus. Egypt went from being the center for easy literacy (cheap papyrus) and the prosperous breadbasket for the Med (via its wheat exports), to a barren wasteland where there are still poor people lined up for government bread made with imported wheat.
The timeless engineering feats which kept the Nile in check were wrecked and fell into decay. Wheeled carts disappeared as (a) Arabs have an aversion to manual labor, and (b) it was easy just to take the infidel’s carts…until eventually the Copts simply quit making them…thus the regressive nature of Islam, the ultimate destroyer of property rights, innovation, and an authentic rule of law.
All that was replaced by an aggressive rule of desert barbarism. And if present-day Saudi Arabia is any indication, that culture hasn’t changed.
Thank you.
The Saudis have SUVs and limos. Oh, sorry, they’re imported!
Clear our minds. Change our attitudes. Stand up for civilization. Take it strongly into your/our everyday life.
Ric is rick, Rob. The analogies in this essay do not hold water. And if it’s any consolation, the Romans of the first century BC already believed that there civilisation was in decline – ie. the notion that things are getting worse is as old as time.
Perfect example of overthinking everything. It’s the trap of leftist intellectualism that we’ve been indoctrinated with since at least the 1960’s.
If you read Diana West’s excellent book, Betrayal, and its prequel by Fred Siegel, you begin to see the rot setting in by the first decade of the 20th century. We caught the virus from the British…beginning with the Fabians.
The surviving eastern – Constantinople – part of the Roman spent its entire, post 8th century, existence fighting the onslaught of Islam. And then fell to it. Hence we got the Ottoman empire, then Turkey and Istanbul.
It is chilling to see the geographical contraction of the Byzantine Empire in one map. But it is now “racist” to support the Greeks over the Turks.
Before Muslims can defeat the West, Marxism already has. Christianity has been dead in Western Europe for decades following the misery imposed by our insane world wars. The main line Christian churches here stand for nothing, at best, so vacuums get filled. Women are in the majority in our voting booths, won’t replace our population and aren’t enamored of bloody wars to preserve anything. Look at Merkel’s impotent Wehrmacht for proof. Her diploma says Karl Marx University, doesn’t it? They surely can’t win the wars, either, and score casualties in the abortuary that exceed all the wars in all of man’s history, combined. Time will march on, Western civilization can’t because it doesn’t exist anymore.
P.S. German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen visited Iraq to talk to the German officers training Kurdish fighters, she assured her troops that they would not be close to the battle zones.
That’s why state-supported religions are death to any spiritual impulse. Ditto, state-supported “arts”… I used to try to get the B to apply for state grants to support his painting since many of his landscapes will someday be of historical interest. He absolutely refused to go near government money.
In the U.S., religion is vital and varied. Some of its manifestations are nutsy, some reflect the American attraction for mega-anything, and some prove you can believe ten impossible things before breakfast. I love it all, even the stuff I’ll never do.
One of my favorite places is the black Baptist church that abuts our property. We got permission to use their church to get married since we could walk to it. And when one of our black friends who belong to that church dies, we go to the funeral. I love the funeral rituals there, but it’s not my “way” of doing things in the face of death.
I was taken aback at how quickly Catholicism shriveled in Ireland once it ceased being the official religion. Ireland is better off for it; some of the northern counties may yet join the Republic as an indirect result. Wouldn’t ever have happened with that huge toad, the church, sitting atop everything.
No, I’m not anti-Catholic. But I am against much of what I see presently.
Dympna is DEFINITELY not anti-Catholic. The leaders of the RCC for the last half century have been though.
Exuding weakness and turning the patriarchy of the Church over to feminization is a cultural dead end, as most of the women vote for the weakest candidate. The empowerment of weakness, is not a strength.
As for Eire, the North gets too much welfare from England to ever stop the flow. The dole takes a toll.
H Numan, I believe you exaggerate any potential threat from Sadiq Khan. London mayors have less power than their US equivalents.
I voted for him because a) I usually support candidates from the Left, notwithstanding my recent votes for UKIP in the European and General Elections; b) I think he’ll do his best to provide desperately needed affordable housing; c) The Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith, like his late father James, was especially repugnant.
H Numan, I believe you exaggerate any potential threat from Sadiq Khan. London mayors have less power than their US equivalents.
I voted for him because a) I usually support candidates from the Left, notwithstanding my recent votes for UKIP in the European and General Elections; b) I think he’ll do his best to provide desperately needed affordable housing; c) The Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith, like his late father James, was especially repugnant.
Islamisation is a serious threat or I wouldn’t be following “Gates”, but it’s not the only issue.
Cute.
Mark H,
I agree that London’s mayors have comparatively little power. The power of Saddiq Khan being mayor of London, however, is the symbolism of it to the Muslim world. London is a city of huge historical importance to the English-speaking and Western world, and retains its importance as a world financial and cultural centre; in the eyes of the Ummah they have conquered it.
The threat of Islam may not be the only issue as you say, but given the demographic trends in the UK, it is has become or is becoming the paramount one. As a long-time reader of this site (about 10 years?) you must surely have noticed the astonishing advance, in a negative sense, of the sheer prominence of Islam since 2007?
Hopefully you will be able to merge your concerns about Islam with your left-of-centre politics as the counter-Jihad needs to be a broad church if it is to have any chance.
Choudary, Krekar, Ellison, Khan, Trudeau, Obama, Clintons, Kerry, Turnbull, Hollande, Merkel, CAIR, May, Cameron, Carter, Abedin, etc. Are you still wondering who these people are?
Train daily in martial arts, firearms combat and military tactics.
Prey harder.
Interesting about the Roman military, tactics and equipment. I taught Roman Greek history and I’ve recently picked up a couple of books on Roman military. Roman military, equipment, and tactics evolved from the pre Republic period to the fall of Constantinople 1453. They often adopted some of the weapons and tactics of the conquered enemy. The Celtic tribes of Gaul were used as an annex to the Roman cavalry. There were some ad asdptions from the Persians to heavily armoured cavalry.
A great scholar and author on Roman history is Dr. Peter Heather. I’m slowly reading his huge book on the Fall of Rome. I read “Charlemagne and Mohammed Revisted” so I wanted to get a broader picture of who the barbarians were, so I am reading Peter Heather’s book. I’ve watched several lectures on YouTube by him. True the German tribes on the edge of the Empire had been Romanized but the Anglo-Saxon tribes were not or according Emmett Scott. Unlike the tribes around the Empire these more northern barbarians were pagan and worshipped war god. The invasion of present day England was extremely brutal with the typical raping, plundering, and enslaving. I agree with Emmet Scott that Islam destroyed classical civilization. The Germanic barbarians embraced it but the mostly illiterate Arab barbarians rejected it.
Apparently 63% of the German military is Muslim. The author here adds that 10% of Holland’s Parliamentary seats are occupied by Muslims. The Islamization has been fairly stealthy so far. Most telling is how actively the elites are collaborating with & covering for the Muslims. Canada is showing early signs of caving to Islamic influence with hardly a peep of protest. It’s a lobster trap, beyond a certain point there’s no way back.
Why are the elites collaborating and thereby bringing about their own downfall? It makes no sense.
A typically [insulting characterization redacted] from [insulting characterization redacted] who think they can use the Roman empire to serve their political ends. Once it was the Marxists, now it’s the anti-immigration lobby.
I see nothing in the discussion of the Roman army here (aside from insinuation) that offers any reason why it contributed to the fall of the western empire.
Christianity has been dragged into this debate ever since Edward Gibbon suggested that it enervated the manly virtues of the ancient Romans. No one believes that it brought about the fall of the western empire, and in fact Numan doesn’t really do much with Christianity at all. Read Gibbon if you want a comparison between Christians and traditional Romans.
Barbarians: here the discussion gets vague. Numan doesn’t want to talk in terms of ‘peoples’ because ‘barbarian’ is easier to conjure with. The analogies between Stilicho and Aboutaleb and Alaric and Khan are not worthy of someone who regards himself as writing history. The analogies tell us nothing about why Rome fell, and you would be sadly misled if you thought that the modern figures can tell you anything about the ancient ones. The rhetorical dexterity of that paragraph starting ‘so why did the West Roman empire fall while the Byzantine empire did not?’ is [insulting characterization redacted]. And it says nothing about why the west fell, which was for a myriad of reasons.
The facts are rather more complex than your [insulting characterization redacted] Dutch correspondent would have his readers believe. The Roman army long drew on barbarians to defend the empire and it was not predominantly Italian (what did you think it was before the barbarians took it over?) since the first century. The Christians, far from prompting the downfall of Rome, provide continuity between the classical past and the medieval world – how can we read Cicero and Livy otherwise? The fall of the west was more complex than ‘barbarian invasions’ – but who are these barbarians? Numan wants to avoid breaking the term down, because those barbarians are the ones who set up the kingdoms and empires of Europe (anyone heard of Charlemagne?) and resisted the Islamic invasion of Europe (or of the Battle of Tours?).
I leave you with two points to remember:
1. the Roman empire was built on absorbing foreigners, giving them citizenship, and allowing them a role in the political life of the empire. What sort of empire do you imagine it was for most of its lifetime? How do you think it grew? It grew by what we would consider a liberal attitude to citizenship. Compare Athens and Sparta, empires which fell because they had a notion of citizenship that was basically narrowly defined by ethnicity. The first ‘provincial’-born emperor came to the throne within a hundred years of Augustus, before the empire reached its greatest extent. Rome’s greatness rested on the ‘barbarians’.
2. for the Greeks of the age of Alexander the Great, the Romans too were barbarians.
Don’t listen to the [insulting characterization redacted] of Numan. Read some good history and then judge events for yourself.
The ‘insulting characterisations’, as the editor insultingly characterises them, were tame and did not involve expletives. Since when is ‘[insulting characterization]’ an insulting characterisation? It’s called irony, and it is designed to show up the poor argumentation of the original post. Or are we supposed to engage with your blog with a po face?
I’ll answer your questions seriatim:
1) Irony is insulting when it is intended to denigrate and show contempt for the person addressed or described.
2) You are “supposed to engage with [our] blog” with civility and respect towards the contributors and your fellow commenters. Any meaningful criticism you might have can be expressed without your phrasing it in an insulting manner. If it can’t, then it’s not really criticism, but a personal attack, and therefore lacks objective content.
You may insult and deride public figures here all you like — Donald Trump, Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau, Geert Wilders, and Marine Le Pen are all fair game (as long as you eschew obscenities, that is).
But your fellow commenters and the volunteers who devote long hours of toil to write and translate for us must be treated with civility. And civility is in the eye of this particular beholder, namely myself. What’s more, Dymphna tends to be more stringent than I am — so when she’s on duty, commenters are advised to mind their p’s and q’s.
If the annoyance level induced by your comments continues to run high, or if I get tired of redacting them (which I will, very quickly), then they will simply be deleted. That saves me a lot of time.