How accurate are these parallels betwen rome and america?

is this a good interpertation of Spenglers theory?
youtube.com/watch?v=dCvyg679bsg

where are the raiding parties of barbarians?
>inb4 mexicans

Lets start out

America is a federal republic with a predesigned system of government.

Rome was a aristocratic republic with a ad hoc form of government. Most notably here there was no divide between the military and civilian government

JFK was killed by a communist extremest, not the aristocracy.

The populari/optimates were factions not parties.

Rome was always intended as on oligarchy, the senate was meant to be exactly this. Any democratic elements were concessions, not features.

The lack of free landowners was as much attributable to a population boom as patrician exploitation.

These are just some of the more obvious problems I saw. suffice to say the video is pretty inaccurate

>le decline of le west meme :^)
When will this meme die, and when will retarded fearmongerers like Sargon just admit that we are doing just fine?

getting third person embarrassment by just watch this

>Insert Donald Trump
Yep there it is.
Basically just a political advertisement that has the benefit of being able to pick and choose "correlations" from almost a thousand years of Roman history. Whether some of those correlations are correct or not does not matter clearly.
Maybe if the video focused on a particular period it would be more plausible. Its clearly trying to draw parallels between Rome's transition from republic to empire, yet it pulls from nearly a thousand years of history.

test

Decline and doing just fine aren't mutually exclusive.

I see you shilling.
There have been like 4 or 5 threads about him here in the past two weeks, one of them on this very topic.

>Spengler.

You haven't read him nor has he.

>
1 See Vol. II, pp. I I 6 et seq. What constitutes the downfall is not, e.g., the catastrophe of the Great Migrations, which like the annihilation of the Maya Culture by the Spaniards (see Vol. II, p. 51 et seq.) was a coincidence without any deep necessity, but the inward undoing that began from the time of Hadrian, as in China from the Eastern Han dynasty (2.5-=0).

No, according to Spengler, Faustian civ won't fall for another 300-400 years, more if it manages to create a world state.

comparisons between 'our times' and the Decline of Rome tend to be fallacious or at least hyperbolic tb h

I'd say a more accurate comparison would be the decline of the Commonwealth instead of the decline of Rome, what with the legislature crippling the executive's ability to govern by vetoing everything possible just because they could.

Hadrian's reforms allowed the empire to survive as long as it did. I'd say Commodus was the start of the decline though.

go to bed, carl

>It did not take long for the prretor to become the centre of both legislation and judicial practice. And presently; corresponding to the political extension of the city's power, the jurisdiction of the prretor and the field of his jus civile - the law of the citizens - begin to diminish in significance and the peregrin prretor with his jus gentium - the law of the alien - steps into the foreground. And when finally the whole population of the Classical world, save the small part possessing Roman citizenship, was comprised in the field of this alien law, the jus peregrinttm of the city of Rome became practically an imperial law. All other cities - and even Alpine tribes and migrant Bedouin clans were civitates from the administrative point of view - retained their local laws only as supplements, not alternatives, to the peregrin law of Rome.
It marked the close of Classical law-making, therefore, when Hadrian (about A.D. 130) introduced the Edictum perpettltlm, which gave final form to the well-established corpus of the annual pronouncements of the prretors and for- bade further modifications thereof. It was still, as before, the prretor's duty to publish the "law of his year," but, even though this law had no greater de- gree of validity than corresponded to his administrative powers and was not the law of the Empire, he was obliged thenceforth to stick to the established text. 2 It is the very symbol of the petrified "Late" Civilization.8

This is the stupidest shit I've fucking seen.

When referring to the creation of the Roman Republic, he referred to the founders as a dispossessed peoples

A huge swathe of civilisations and not just republican ones were founded by dispossessed peoples

ALSO THAT IS FUCKING THE CLAUDIAN EMPEROR TIBERIUS NOT TIBERIUS GRACCHUS

neither is his profile icon the bust of Sargon of Akkad. The guy tends to get his historical busts wrong.

Just because the parallels aren't 1:1 with Rome, doesn't mean we can't take something from it. The Founding Fathers were raised up reading about Rome, and obviously they created the government with the intention of not having the same weaknesses. There are still parallels that can be discussed.
That being said, this whole "end of American Republic" shit needs to stop. He keeps reading into America like its about to crumble away. While it does have corruption, its not going to lead to a fucking Civil War.

Also, I hate how Sargon tries to portray Trump as a populist reformer who will save the republic, when that's really not who he is.

Which is kind of hilarious when you consider the fact that he had another video flatly disputing comparisons between Trump and Hitler, only to cherry-pick history here.

>I hate how Sargon tries to portray Trump as a populist reformer

Same. Trump has literally only ever been out for himself, at any cost. I have no idea how this is even in dispute.

>When you realize clickb8 can cherry pick evidence to effectively make anything sound plausible
>Top 10 Similarities between America and Rome

>>I hate how Sargon tries to portray Trump as a populist reformer
>Same. Trump has literally only ever been out for himself, at any cost. I have no idea how this is even in dispute.

You say that like Hillary isn't guilty of the exact same thing. She literally stole hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of items from the Whitehouse, that become infinitely valuable when you consider their historical context. Not to mention she set up a charity that takes money from the shadiest characters in the world and then she personally pockets said money.

Thus, since both candidates are Machiavellian cunts we can only examine their policy.

Hillary has the same old brand of neoconservative foreign policy mixed in with whatever economic points she thinks will gain her votes.

Trump has been voicing points that are so against the grain you would have to be a fool to think that he wasn't at least somewhat genuine.

And by the way, if you actually read his stated policy it is populist.

If you study art history you'll know that the bust he uses was previously thought to be that of Sargon of Akkad, but it is unknown now since invading forces defaced the bust.

So stop it with your holier than thou circle jerk.

that's tiberius the emperor, not gracchus