More than half of French people think that our civilization will collapse

Nobody said the money was made of thin air, french people pay a lot of money for that system, it can be around the half of their salary, and a lot of people are willing to do that to get a possibility to be taken care of when you're older.
Some people can't work anymore at 60, but some rich effeminate rich parisian can't understand that.

I used "barbarian" as the first meaning : someone not greek or roman (in fact second meaning, before it was simply not greek). Furthermore, a lot of them were converted to christianity.

They were a bunch of barbarian tribes that came and became "foedus" or "foederati" the root of the feudal system. You can't search and read for that.
By the way, one of the main reason Romans fell is they become a bunch of degenerate, quite similar to today.

 

Just read today that when the Vandals attacked the Roman city of Carthage
the people weren't at the barricades, they were all at a football match.

 

Are you sure it was football ? I mean, I know there is pretty ancient variants of football, but I never heard it was so common in old roman empire.

 

Our civilization IS going to collapse. Either that or we'll colonize the stars and live forever. Which seems more likely?

Lol at explosion of criminality though. We literally live in the safest time in human history.

 

Source ?


"Taux" mean rate, I doubt you need to get "criminalité" translated.

And who is "we" ? It depend where do you live, I doubt an inhabitant of honduras is concerned.

 

https://www.ijpr.org/post/world-actually-safer-ever-and-heres-data-prove#stream/0

I have no idea where that chart you posted comes from. What they classify as 'criminality.'

That seems crazily overly broad. Is littering and murder grouped in the same category? Seems like nonsense. Last year the US had the lowest murder rate in its history. Most of the world is following the same trend.

What is the source for your chart?

 

Here is another one. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/global-homicide-rates-continue-to-fall-2020/

I thought this was common knowledge. By we I mean the average citizen of the world. Yes, some countries go through waves of increased crime, but as a whole this is by far the best time to be a human being.

 

@Capn Awesome It depend where do you live btw, the source is the "ministère de l'intérieur", french police office.

 

What do they mean by criminality? Does littering count? What's their methodology for collecting that data? Has it remained consistent from 46 til now? Is that just for France?

Of course it depends on region. Which is why the links I posted examined the world as a whole and focused on a easy to define and reliably collected statistic, homicide rate.

It seems to me that your chart probably isn't adjusted for population growth. Although I can't be certain since you arent provided a link and its in French. If what you were saying were true certainly you'd be able to find multiple sources that I'd be able to look at.

We live in the safest time in human history. That's backed up by the mountains of evidence that you can read in those two links.

 

It's a rate, not a raw number so population growth doesn't influence the rate.

Both "crime" (which in france count things like rape, murder) and "delits" (less offense like theft) are taken account. Considering littering, I doubt so,
The methodology is not fully exposed but provided by the police and the INSEE (institut national de la statistique et des études économiques : national institute of statistics and economic studies).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taux_de_criminalité_en_France

The problem of homicide rates is that you can't tell apart where it's because there is actually less violence, and when there is where less attempt of murder. In France however it decreased slighty over the 60 less years.

When I spoke of the crime rate that became three time bigger, I spoke only of France, so basically it doesn't contradict that the world as a whole is becoming safer, but that's absolutly not the case in France.

 

"of course".... but it sounds like white supremacy to everybody else.

The Vandals are a Germanic tribe, and not from Africa. They went TO Africa.
You really do not know crap. lol

 

Do the French ever tire of having their hands in the air?

 

More often that you get tired of your own stupidity and trolling.

 

The masses also seem not to understand it, that half their salary is spend on their rather lavish retirement plans.
Lavish compared to say the Germans and the Dutch who work for more years than the French.

Indeed. And there is nothing barbaric about them non Greeks and Romans, compared to them Romans and Greek.
They had their slaves fight to the death against wild animals.... as freaking entertainment.
Come on! lol

Rome conquered most of Europe/Northern Africa because they were military superior, with their infantry.
Rome fell because the huns were military superior with their mounted archers.
There is nothing like it today.

 

There is many senses about barbaric, you speak of the second sense, the more recent one.
Considering slaves fighting to death against wild animals (that was mostly however people sentenced to death, it doesn't make that less cruel), it ended to be forbidden under christianity however.
The violence of civilization is an interesting thematic. That was a thematic that was largely developped by a bunch of authors after WW1 and WW2. That's a thematic that was quite loved by the inventor of the hero "Conan the barbarian", where he opposed often the raw violence of the barbarian to the great perversity of more civilized antagonists. Effectively, civilized people aren't less violent, just more perverse.
We could relate it to the violence of the wars in congo to obtain the components of our electronic devices, or just the perversity of multinationals that make work people in third world countries in insane conditions, or simply of the animal condition today.

Rome didn't only conquered, they maintened an empire also.
I'm not speaking of a matter of military superiority but about relations of dependance.

Rome was extremly dependant of their slaves, with time they even became dependant of the foedus from a military point of view. Their unability to train skilled military leaders were a part of their downfall. We could also speak of the addiction of the roman civilization to entertainment. We could speak also of the fact that they went quite irreligious, until christian uprising.
My hypothesis is that there elites were stupid because they had always too much slaves to take care of them. Value is forged in hardship, not in comfort. We could speak also of environnmental problems like saturnism in ancient Rome.

I could also take the example of french nobility, as long they were warriors and knights, they managed to keep there power. However, they were troublesome, and Louis XIV to keep his power created Versaille. What did french nobility ? They were relying on the third estate to fill their needs, they were spending there time in entertainment, and sexual intercourses (the libertinage). In an interesting way, it seemed that the late roman empire got some rather "liberal" sexuality, I lack of documents but it's interesting. It's intersting to speak again of intoxication, men and women to whiten their skin tended to put some lead on their skin, not really a good idea.
Atheism tended to spread in higher spheres (Sade, Baron d'Holback).
By the way it was unbearable for the third estate that ended to throw those degenerates in the trash can named "Guillotine".

Let's come to us, of what are we dependant ? Of the chinese, factories, of the latinos or the african that come take the tough work in our countries, of the limited oil, but not only, of dozen and dozen of different limited ressources. Considering entertainment, most people are just hungry of video games, marvel movies or that kind of things. Considering sexuality and religion, I would let you judge.

So yes, I do think there is a lot of similarities between those three eras, and the fat marvel fan that need Rosa to clean his appartment is not that different from the slave owning Roman going to the circus.

 

There is nothing specifically civilized when suddenly being Christian. What a total joke to think like that. Some navy seal killed his captive teenager for no reason with a hunting knife to than pose next to the corpse. People who served under him said he killed girls with his sniper rifle for the heck of it. Donald draft dodger Trump, the face of the US civilization gave him a full pardon. That's what we are at today. Not different that some ISIS dude decapitating his prisoner.

The simple thing is... they simply got beat by others.
And they came from the east. Nothing like it today.

Not relevant.

Last time I checked, there is no army busy invading our western civilization.
Such comparisons is just white nationalistic nonsense.

 

Absolutly no link with what I was talking about, and absolutly not my point, I just said that gladiator games got prohibited under christianity.

Furthermore why do you associate civilization with a lack of cruelty or violence ? I suppose that french, german, japanese histories are full of stories that tell a lot about civilization and progress. Civilization isn't the lack of cruelty, it just putting rules on it.

Romans knew other defeats like under Brutus, and the roman empire constantly fought against other forces, either against the german tribes or the persian empire. Furthermore, the roman empire ended to defeat Attila on the cathalaunian fields. Rome was dismantled partly by the own people they "welcomed", the foederati we were speaking sooner. We could also says that an invasion doesn't result in the disappearance of a whole country or culture, china didn't disappeared after the mongolian invasion, neither Persia disappeared after the victory of Alexander the great. If the roman empire disappeared, it's for reasons that go far beyond a simply military defeat, which is only the symptom of the roman empire being unable to form new skilled leaders.
It was no secret that the roman empire knew a long crisis and decadence, the fact that the roman empire got in 4 centuries, 100 emperors and that the half went murdered. Aetius, the victor of Attila was murdered, he was no emperor but murdered by the emperor. Ironically, that emperor murdered him in fear of Aetius taking his place, and would end to be murdered in revenge

We could furthermore speak of the deep economic crisis the roman empire had during the third century.

Empires, societies collapse time to time, there is plenty examples of that.

That thread is about civilization collapse. Other collapses such the collapse of the ancien regime is absolutly relevant.

No army, but there is large movement of population, and on that it's alike to the foederati. In both case, the romans failed to integrate the foederati, and the west is largely failing at integrating muslims.
Furthermore, collapse could come from othe reasons than invasion.

 

Besides that Trump is a present day devoted Christian who supports his fellow countrymen stab non Christians to death for no reason. The level of barbarism is there. The idea that Christians aint barbaric, but non Christians are. Just part of some quasi the white christian superior race theme.

It's not putting rules on it, it's putting rules against it. We got rules against stabbing teenagers for no reason. They simply are not applied when a White Christian from a first world country does it to a brown Muslim.

There was no dismantlement by people they welcomed in. You're free to source it otherwise. Rome had a fierce problem in which Roman actually controls Rome, at best. The Huns were simply that powerful that they made people move to the Roman empire, and Rome could no nothing.The could not defeat the Huns. In the end, the Huns were defeated by their fellow Huns.

Nowhere do I spot that idea Rome was defeated by people they welcomed in.
That seems to be white nationalistic nonsense.

The foederati has nothing to do with the "in 4 centuries, 100 emperors and that the half went murdered".
It's the simple thing of... just blame the foreigner of your own failures. A typical far right wing idea to do.
It's all part of that white genocide theme.

 

I think you need to define "white supremacy"
it has a fashionable, left-wing, nasty and biting feel to it.
Would you call Islam brown supremacy? Certainly MOST
Muslims believe they are the supreme religion and they
will rule the world one day. Compare this statement to
your definition of white supremacy.
Of course, black supremacy is a thing, too.
And there's many other supremacies in this world - one
of which is left-wing or liberal supremacy of the arts, media,
entertainment and education system.

 

pick up a dictionary.

And so much for your white supremacist idea's about the collapse of Rome.
And FYI... I haven't seen armed Muslims march in the US like the white supremacist do.
Heck, them white supremacist even rally to keep their slaver monuments on prominent positions.
I have yet to see Rosa Parks on such a pedestal.

 

The bite word used to be "racist" but it's been used to death
so the baying mob use the word "white supremacist" now.
"White" - it's a wonderfully racist word.

It wasn't "white supremacists" who created slavery in North
America, it was Democrats.

 

You should start to actual answer my messages and not to your own delusion. I didn't pretended anything you said, I just stated the historical fact that gladiator games and alike stopped under christianity.

I always mentionned foederati, you don't want to open and read a history book ? Too bad.
"Rome" (in fact more the germanic tribes that gathered with them) defeated the huns at the Catalaunian fields
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foederati#5th_century

Yes, excepted that I didn't pretended that was the fault of foederati.

You constantly misinterpret what I says because you're obsessed with your white nationalist thematic. I get it, you're sincere, you don't it on purpose, but it's start to be annoying to answer to someone who constantly mishape my words.
The foederati, the constant political chaos are just two symptoms of a same problem : late romans being degenerate decadents that would lead them to their collapse.
Roman collapse is only one collapse about many (french revolution, USSR, mayan, assyrian) that could help us understand the events today.

The ethnic part is important, but it's not even the most important one, the collapse would happen with or without that, the hatred between the different ethnic group in Europe would just turn a "regular" collapse in a butchery, but it's itself not the cause of the collapse, just a symptom.

 

Rome did not fall to the Huns but they surely weakened them. After Attila died, like so many of these parasitic bands, they started fighting among themselves and caused the collapse of the Hunnish empire.

 

People, not just French people are beginning to talk about the Collapse of our Civilisation. I noticed yesterday an article pointing out that history is full of the collapse of civilisations so no big deal!

We have a President of the United States creating Tactical nukes and talking of using them.

We have the climate emergency which the US refuses to work on which is already so advanced many believe the collapse of our societies is a certainty and some believe it will lead to human extinction. This is not some time in the future. It is happening now.

We have viruses which can travel the world
and we have the US which has basically been engaged in World War since 9/11

possibly we should be questioning why anyone does not believe we are on the edge of societal collapse/ the collapse of our civilisation, the edge of extinction.