Not sure that is true. I know it is common comparison or popular one. The fall of Roman empire was subtle. They were never conquered by an enemy. It simply crumbled from within.
I can't agree with that. Rome was sacked by the Vandals and other Goths several times --- simultaneously generals were fighting each other for the emperorship. So Rome crumbled from within AND from outside attacks, in that Germans kept being let in legally and illegally and they just kept attacking till they won. That's what replaced Rome --- German tribes. The parallel with our own invasions from Muslims and Mexicans is obvious, and with the invasions conquering Europe also, black Africans and Muslims from the Mideast and Afghanistan and Iraq.
There is a real disease of apathy that is happening. Our culture is in complete rot. The absurdity of what is being taught at every level of school in this country is just beyond words to describe.
The canary in the mine shaft is if nothing is done to the democrats and those who particiapted in their clear attempt to undermine a duly elected president then I am sorry. It is dead.
Of course I agree with you. The transvestites, homosexuals, black rioting, drugs, illegals streaming in --- the culture is rotten.
The fall of Soviets was really quite different. Sorry, but if there are not a number of perp walks and if they win the election and find false reasons to impeach 45, then it is truly dead.
I don't say a real political collapse couldn't happen: I'm the one always saying it IS likely. My point is that it hasn't happened until after it happens. People mistake the lead-up, the simmering, for an actual political collapse, not realizing that these events are very dramatic and usually involve tanks these days. Yeltsin on the tank, Tiananamen Square with tanks, tanks in the streets of Turkey just last year, IIRC. Wait till you see tanks or something equally dramatic to say there's a coup going on. It's like there can't be a revolution
per se without famine; and there can't be a civil war without tens of thousands dying: there are definitions to be met.
But I agree with you that this is a quite bad and dangerous time. Actually the time I am most comparing it with is 160 years ago right here: 1858, before Lincoln's election which was the trigger that started all the secessions, when everyone was so angry and vicious in their talk, mostly the left, of course, the abolitionists.
It's always the Left that is most vicious in every civil war or disturbance. The Spanish Civil War -- the left started it and did the torturing; the Paris mob parading heads on pikes in the French revolution and hanging the bakers; the communist riots in the Russian Revolution and the Reds machine-gunning the Czar and all his children; I could go on and on, but it's always the Left that is vicious and we see that today. You are not wrong, IMO.