Will Europe end like the Roman republic?

Invaded by barbarian tribes, culturally impotent and with a collapsed family structure, Europe was ready for defeat when Rome fell – as it is now.

By Giulio Meotti, INN

The political talkers who discuss immigration always politicize it, either as “invasion” or “welcome”. People, on the other hand, know everything intuitively: that Europe, as our ancestor designed it for centuries, is collapsing.

In Ceuta, the EU’s extreme border between Spain and Morocco, 592 sub-Saharan migrants stormed and crossed the border with Molotov cocktails and bars, wounding dozens of Spanish policemen. This is the biggest encroachment since, in February 2017, 850 migrants entered the enclave.

Will we follow the example of the decomposition of the Roman Republic? Even then, the rich senatorial élite had become sclerotic and the rise of populist politicians, such as Catiline or Claudius, helped to destabilize the system through demagogic laws. After the Republic it was the Empire. And in a single generation, the collapse.

Those 592 migrants did not escape from any war. They come to bring multicultural war to Europe. Europeos despierta! Europeans wake up!

In 1947, the sociologist Carle C. Zimmerman wrote a book explaining why Western civilization is going through the same family crisis that had predicted the fall of ancient Rome. In all civilizations, Zimmerman wrote in “Family and Civilization”, there are three basic family types:

The tribal and clanic family, which predominates in agrarian societies. The “domestic” family model is rich in strong ties and is found in developing civilizations. The decadent family model is “atomistic”, it has weak links and emerges in advanced civilizations. When the Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, the strong families of the barbarian tribes substituted for the weak Roman families. And it is happening also to the contemporary family of Swedish vocation.

Radical Islam now tries to cancel the battle of Poitiers to reintroduce in history the idea of conquering a Europe that has already denied itself. This is the discourse of the Islamic State and other Jihadists and Muslim suprematists, which is not a historical accident, as much as Stalinism was not a disease of Communism. It is actually its fulfillment.

And this is always the speech of the “immigrationists”, those cynical liberals for whom the world is only a big market – as well as the beautiful souls of multiculturalism, who kneel before the power of the number: the victory of Islam is in fact, first of all, that of the demographic number, sanctioned by migratory phenomena as well as by judicial decisions, and most of all by the weakness of the Europeans, who are told to no longer be themselves.

August 13, 2018 | 12 Comments »

Leave a Reply

12 Comments / 12 Comments

  1. Robert Spencer claims that Islamic conquest destroyed the Roman Empire.
    Rome is still alive (for a while) ref : Ancient Rome by Robert Payne.
    The final chapter is ” A Spacious Legacy”.
    Roman law, endurance, logic, order, assimilation of other cultures, is the West.
    Despite the Roman-Jewish conflict, Jews did not fare well the destruction of the Roman Empire.
    History repeats itself. The end of America as America will be the end of Rome.

  2. There is some strange difference here. The invaders would not have one ounce of power except that they are invited in by the political elite to destroy European Culture and European Nationalism.
    The Globalists, or the wealthy power elite intend to establish a totalitarian state in which all citizens are ruled by them with the use of strong security forces and modern technology. They wish to establish the most repressive controlled totalitarianism that has ever existed. Every thought, every movement of every citizen will be controlled and ruled by them .
    The question is , can they keep their dogs under control or will the dos rip out the throats of their masters and does it even matter?.
    Because, in any case, Europe is lost.
    For years previously , I told on this site that there is a Western Power elite (owns the media , owns the political parties) and their goal is to crate an absolute totalitarian State.
    Yadda yadda no one listens… big conspiracy baloney yeah sure
    Well here it is, now there is no more Europe.
    Anyone wising up yet?
    Trudeau and Merkel are Globalist puppets, they are not the problem only the replaceable arms of a Medusa. Globalist power is the problem.

  3. @ Michael S:

    The history of the Roman Empire can teach us many lessons and indeed religion was part of this.

    Islam rolled out its conquests of the ancient world after the death of its founder in 632.

    Unperturbed, Emperor Heraclius had more pressing issues on his mind. 0n May 31st, 632 he issued a decree of forced conversion of his Jewish subjects to Christianity. At the same time, Maximus the Confessor and his friend and colleague, Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem obsessed themselves endlessly with derogatory anti-Jewish rhetoric.

    Meanwhile the camel in the room kept storming westwards. In 638 Jerusalem fell to Saracen hordes swooping in from the Arabian deserts.

    Things have not changed in 1’400 years.

    Following the Arab oil embargo of 1973, Western European countries embarked on a mission to engage Arab nations in the Euro-Arab Dialogue. As a gladly issued trade-off concession to the Arab League, Europe offered to adopt the Arab position in the Israeli conflict in return for guaranteed supplies of oil.

    Careful study of Euro-Arab Dialogue resolutions of the 1970s and 1980s reveal the agreement to allow Arab migration into Europe, awarding of generous privileges and instituting Islamic inspired programs in European Universities.

    This development culminated in the Barcelona Declaration of 1995 and the subsequent creation of the Union for the Mediterranean. Though not widely reported, MfU has wasted several trillion of Euros to Arab nations bordering the Mediterranean.

    Europe’s Roman era derived churches vied with Judaism for God’s approval for 2’000 years, overseeing the ruthless eradication of nearly the entire European Jewry in the 20th Century. But just at that moment suprême, the State of Israel had proven the church wrong one more time.

    Not the ones to despair, traditional European clergy embraced Muslim ideology enthusiastically. Jesus was proclaimed a Palestinian, even if this meant the self-denial of one’s very own Christian heritage, because once again Israel could be branded a usurper. As long as Israel was ostracized, the church is ready to negate its own origins. Attacking Israel provided the bonus of being anti-Jewish without the stigma of having to be anti-Semitic.

    As a direct consequence, good European Samaritans and parishes all across the continent instituted a welcoming culture for Muslim migrants starting as of the 1980s.

    No mischief these new migrants conjured, was able to detract the European’s obsession. Israel was branded the sole danger to world peace, a Nazi nation, Gaza was labeled an Auschwitz concentration camps, and ever more Arab migrants were happily invited to immigrate to Europe.

    Europe could have invited industrious Chinese, sturdy Mexican or serene Philippine workers to supplant its declining population numbers. But utility was never the point.

  4. Another liddle tid-bid Michael. I was reading something about Hannibal, and following on something else, also found a mention of the Magyars in the 12th. cent. They were almost destroyed by Subutai, Gengis Cohen’s famous general. This was at the end of the 12th.. or the beginning of the 13th centuries.

    So the Mongols were in Europe on an invasion trip too. The poor old Maggies were getting it from all sides, something like Israel, although Israel deserves it because they could end it in a week. I see Liberman is now being supported by Meretz.

    I seem to recall from my research about the Khazars many years ago, that they were severely defeated and chased away a distance by the Pechenegs as well.

  5. I suppose Michael, that you know that the European pagans had no idea of anything about Christianity. I’ve seen records of letters between bishops which said that they had 10th-11th century viking chiefs who boasted about how many white robes they had. It seems that when one was “baptised” the missionary, St. someone- or- other, gave him a white over-shirt as a seal of his Christianity.They naturally regarded these madmen as fools and kept getting “baptised” so as to get whatever they could.

    Sounds something like stamp or book or bottle top collecting, …….doesn’t it….??

    When Jews…like John Hyrcanus converted any pagans he did it in a way that they ALWAYS remembered,,,,,,, He has them circumcised. Takes a “Yiddishe Kop”….

    It’s on record that the Baltic Coast countries were not finally wooed over to Christianity until sometime in the 13th or 14th century. So how much Christian content people actually had in them that they understood about…is very debatable..

  6. @ Michael S:

    Julian was raised as a “forced” Christian. His parents were christian, whatever that meant in those days, but he wasn’t raised with his parents, He was put in the power of a variety of bishops, but as soon as he could get away from them he rejected Christianity, although in later life he did not lay strictures on it or any other religion.

    He was amenable to all religions and wanted to restore the Roman pantheon of gods.to what he called their “proper esteemed glory”. Constantius, although wavering between one and the other, was Pons Maximus, and was deified, and also practiced and officiated at several pagan rites. He revered the Vestal virgins and many others. So how Christian he was had always been debatable.

    I have a biography of Julian, and it was the term “apostate” which intrigued me, as well as having heard that he ordered the temple to be rebuilt. His co-Emperor Constantius and other brothers, relatives etc inevitably are mentioned. Constantius murdered most of them. It seems in those days there were different kids of Emperors. The boss was “Augustus” and the next in charge was “Caesar”.

    The odd thing was that Constantius although fighting against Julian, proclaimed Julian as the ruler when he knew he was dying, and had himself “baptised”. That’s how we really know that he was a “Christian”. I think being a Christian, or whatever in those very fluid days with massacres and counter massacres, and this and that religion etc.etc meant a very different thing to today.

    My information is that the Visigoths didn’t invade Rome until many years after Julian was dead, led by Alaric. As I recall, the city was “sacked”. We all learned that in school. It was at the beginning of the 5th Cent. and Rome was not then the Capital. By that time with the Empire having become so large and unwieldy, co-emperors etc, Rome had already long before, divided into the Western Empire which immediately became a back number, and the Eastern Empire which was the major centre of the Empire, evolving to the Byzantine and which had it’s capital at Byzantium, later named Constantinople after the dead emperor.. The Wiki info is not the best , you know, better having books on the actual subject.

  7. @ Edgar G.:
    Hi, Edgar

    Sobieski indeed stopped the Turks at Vienna, the end of a deep foray into Europe by the Muslim Turks. The earlier invasions which I alluded to, on the other hand, involved all of Europe — as the Muslim & African invasions of today do. One country in the heart of Europe, namely, Burgundy, was attacked in turn by Magyars, Vikings and Arabs, “Valley of Jehosaphat” style.

  8. @ Edgar G.:
    Hi, Edgar.

    You asked why I mentioned “Julian the Apostate”. Of course, it was during the reign of Julian that the Visigoths first invaded the Roman Empire. The gate was opened to the Goths, Franks and other barbarian invaders, by the religious ferment happening in the Roman Empire: Constantine I gave favored status to the Athanasian Orthodox branch of Christianity; his son Constantius II endorsed the Arian branch, which was opposed by the Athanasians (but accepted by barbarian tribes such as the Goths); Finally, his successor and cousin Julian, who had been raised as a Christian (hence the appellation “apostate”) attempted to revive Paganism as the official religion.

    It is historically dishonest, to separate the barbarian invasions from the religious revolution in the Empire — just as it would be equally dishonest to separate that religious discontent from the economic and political decline of Rome brought on by corruption, cronyism and an increasingly oppressive bureaucracy. All of the above, in fact, have parallels in modern Europe and America.

  9. @ Edgar G.:

    All the time i was reading your post and writing my own, a name kept coming into the back of my mind, but I ignored it. It was John Sobieski, who of course was the Polish king, who with his allied army defeated finally once and for all, the Ottoman invasions of Europe. The “Battle of Vienna” was the culmination and was decisive. It was sometime in the last quarter of the 17th cent. I don’t know what I didn’t bring this forward when I thought of it, but I do now. This was the last invasion of Europe until now, with the present barbarians.

    For goodness sake, we learned in school about “The Battle at the Gates of Vienna”.. and we visualised that Vienna had gates then and was a walled city..

  10. @ Michael S:

    Why do you have to mention that Julian was a Pagan. Rome was not yet officially Christian for another 15-20 years. He was only trying to revive the religions which Rome had succeeded under for many hundreds of years. His goal was the restore Roman values and way of life. I recall him as having been known as “Julian The Apostate”, ….by Christians of course.

    He was the last Pagan Emperor of any note, and likely if he’d lived, been the greatest of them all. He was a philosopher and social reformer and had many other likable attributes.. He gave permission for the Jews to rebuild the Temple, and the materials had already been collected, and foundations being laid when he was killed in battle. He did not persecute Christians but respected their customs and rites.

  11. I’ve mentioned this EU invasion by barbarians.. In fact, every present political subject that comes up time after time has been written about by some poster or other.

    The big difference between the Magyar invasion, which at that time wasn’t permanent but more in the nature of seasonal forays, untill the Khazars pushed them further west. and the present barbarians is that the Mangars, Vikings and others were opposed and defeated, whereas the present barbaric hordes have been welcomed with open arms and homes and pocket books by the soft -headed Merkel and her deluded supporters.

    P.G. I hope we see the last of her and her cronies after the next election.

  12. Europe is being swarmed by a barbarian invasion, the likes of which have not been seen since the Magyar/ Viking/ Arab marauders roamed freely in the 10th and 11th Centuries CE. That was the end of a period of invasions that began in 358 CE, during the time of the Pagan Emperor Julian.

    An interesting feature of that invasion period, is that it marked the rise of Christianity to ascendancy in Europe. This is largely because, absent the normal functioning of Roman govenrment, the Catholic and Orthodox churches were left as refuges of justice and stability for the common European.

    The current situation resembles that early Volkwanderung, in that (1) the invaders were of a lower level of civilization than the Europeans, (2) the migrations were primarily population movements, motivated by economic necessity, and (3) the result of the migrations was the gradual collapse of the imperial government, order and society.

    The main difference, is that the earlier invasions took place gradually, over hundreds of years; but the current migration period is likely to end as the result of a nuclear war (a war relatively unrelated to the migration crisis).