The fact that 16 people actually believed that Europe fell into the "Bronze Age" after the fall of the Roman Empire, based on an anonymous comment on Reddit, shows that we really are no better than the people who blindly believe the MSM.
I don't even know where to begin, but just a small selection of the bullcrap:
Rome (obviously) was not 'matriarchal' nor 'feminist' at any time, and certainly not before the collapse of the West. Furthermore, the eastern half survived, so I guess the 'matriarchy' didn't destroy that part.
Citizens definitely needed to work in the 1st century BC. This was just a few decades after the reforms of Gracchus, which were intended to give... landless citizens land, and after the reforms of Marius, which recruited landless people into the army. So much for "they did not need to work". They lived in overcrowded firetraps called insulae, often in pestilential (malarial) areas.
Rome never appreciated "democracy". It was not a democracy, it was a republic (an oligarchy).
The Crisis of the 3rd Century is positioned after the arrival of Catholicism (Christianity) as the state religion, when it actually ended a century before (284).
There is obviously no 'Great Inquisition'. The Crusades were not religious zealotry, they were defensive. People did not live in caves after the fall of the Roman Empire. "Science" did not exist, philosophy had long abated before the fall of Rome, and "human rights" are a modern invention.
For the most part, you are right, but I must point out that "democracy" is just a nice way of saying oligarchic republic, since every form of government is some form of elite rule. In the Roman Republic, just as in the American Republic, democracy means plutocracy: the rule of wealthy elites by means of the media.
It would be nice if real democracy, i.e. the rule of the people, were possible, but it just isn't.
For the most part, you are right, but I must point out that "democracy" is just a nice way of saying oligarchic republic, since every form of government is some form of elite rule.
Absolutely correct, although I've made this same argument and there are some people here who actually believe that modern "democracies" mean that the people rule. I've long believed that Western countries were not democratic at all, because I see that they are totally unresponsive to their populations. I just did not know why, until I read Burnham's Machiavellians, which your comments also sound simialr to.
My point was that Rome was not a 'democracy' even by the quite pitiful standards of modern times.
In the Roman Republic, just as in the American Republic, democracy means plutocracy: the rule of wealthy elites by means of the media.
That certainly is true of the American republic.
It would be nice if real democracy, i.e. the rule of the people, were possible, but it just isn't.
I agree. But there's still ways to be more and less democratic, and the current situation is rather egregious. For example, my country is a member of the EU, and as a result we're even less democratic than we were before, and there's even less accountability.
Friendly reminder: this is absolute bullcrap.
The fact that 16 people actually believed that Europe fell into the "Bronze Age" after the fall of the Roman Empire, based on an anonymous comment on Reddit, shows that we really are no better than the people who blindly believe the MSM.
I don't even know where to begin, but just a small selection of the bullcrap:
For the most part, you are right, but I must point out that "democracy" is just a nice way of saying oligarchic republic, since every form of government is some form of elite rule. In the Roman Republic, just as in the American Republic, democracy means plutocracy: the rule of wealthy elites by means of the media.
It would be nice if real democracy, i.e. the rule of the people, were possible, but it just isn't.
Considering how retarded the average person is, true democracy wouldn't be any better
But would we be having grooming in schools, BLM and endless wars?
The average person may not be brilliant, but he has a measure of common sense that the elites and the wealthy lack.
Yes. Because the general population is retarded.
Think about how many people approve of dems right now, and will keep voting for them.
Absolutely correct, although I've made this same argument and there are some people here who actually believe that modern "democracies" mean that the people rule. I've long believed that Western countries were not democratic at all, because I see that they are totally unresponsive to their populations. I just did not know why, until I read Burnham's Machiavellians, which your comments also sound simialr to.
My point was that Rome was not a 'democracy' even by the quite pitiful standards of modern times.
That certainly is true of the American republic.
I agree. But there's still ways to be more and less democratic, and the current situation is rather egregious. For example, my country is a member of the EU, and as a result we're even less democratic than we were before, and there's even less accountability.