[Alter Kaker]

We're about as strong as the Roman Empire was in 400 A.D.

Uh huh. Which is why the West dominates the world economically, militarily and culturally while Russia and China's populations continue to plummet.

But the internal rot is deep and total collapse is near.

I will concede that there are some weirdos in the West who want the West to fail - not sure why they would want that, and I find it a little strange that they haven't yet received the traditional treatment for traitors.

[wildcard_redneck]

"I will concede that there are some weirdos in the West who want the West to fail"

Your supposition is based on the fallacy that the West has not already fallen. When you look at the evil that the governments of the West, under the control of the CIA and the MIC, have committed against their own citizens in the form of censorship, stolen elections, ideological warfare, ripping open border for invasion and lockdowns you can only conclude that democracy in the West has been terminated. When your own government hates you, is it being a traitor to heat them back? Besides only idiots and propagandists confuse their government with their nation.

[BroJoeK]

Angelino97: "We're about as strong as the Roman Empire was in 400 A.D.
Might look strong from the outside.
The military can still win some major battles.
But the internal rot is deep and total collapse is near."

redfreedom: "Your comments represent a valid fear."

Alter Kaker: "Uh huh.
Which is why the West dominates the world economically, militarily and culturally while Russia and China's populations continue to plummet."

Here's what most people forget about the old Roman Empire:

1. As late as 395 AD, Rome was one empire with one capital and one Emperor, named Theodosious I.
   The Roman Empire's 395 AD borders were roughly the same as they had been 300 years before and Roman legions guarding its borders are estimated to have included around 500,000 men in total, at least as many as ever.

2. It's unknown whether the Empire's population ever fully recovered from the Antonine Plague of 165 AD, which reduced it from around 75 million to perhaps just 50 million.
   Arguably, rebellions, civil wars and invasions kept the numbers relatively low.

   However, when unified as in 395 AD, the old empire was still fully capable of dealing with whatever issues arose.

3. In 395 AD, Theodosius I died, and the empire split in two again, this time permanently.
   The split went roughly 60% to the Eastern Empire in terms of population and economy, with 40% to the Western Empire.
   However, the problems with invasions and rebellions were at least 60% in the West and only 40% in the East.

4. One result was, the West could not for long hold its own militarily.
   The West also suffered from repeated failures of leadership and major treasons at the highest levels, which prevented every effort at recovery from succeeding.
   Most notably, as late as 460 AD, the Western Emperor Majorian had restored the west to over 2/3 of its old territories but was murdered in 461 after which the West rapidly collapsed.

5. So, if you are looking for historical lessons from the Old Roman Empire, here it is:
   Let us analogize the Western Empire with the USA today, and the Eastern Empire with Europe today.
   So long as they were united with strong leaders, then no power on earth could defeat them -- not barbarians, nor rebellions or even civil wars, the empire always recovered and regained anything lost.
   But once they split and became rivals, then the weaker West was relatively quickly destroyed, leaving even the much stronger Eastern Roman Empire too weak to withstand the anti-Christian forces arrayed against it.

   The split between East and West is what allowed barbarians to destroy the West by 476 AD and Muslims to destroy the Eastern Empire beginning after 600 AD

Of course, you may well argue that Rome was the ultimate archetypal "Evil Empire" and should have been destroyed.
Sure, maybe... but from whose perspective, exactly?