Downfall of Rome was Lead

did anyone actually bother to read this "curse of civilization" infographic? it says that foods with phytoestrogens (soy for example) are actually good for you because they bind to estrogen receptor sites and block the more powerful petrochemical xenoestrogens

i guess "BPA boy" doesnt have the same ring to it as "soyboy" but nevertheless…Zig Forums was fucking WRONG

Attached: 5fe.jpg (680x479, 56.35K)

"Downfall" of both was delusion, apathy and weak men that thought they were infallible.
"Downfall" of the latter was overpopulation and a behavioural sink… but that's if there is a "downfall".

Nothing has fallen yet. And I look at the "fall" of Rome as a misconception.
In reality, it just fragmented into empires. For starters, the ostrogoth part merely became the Franks. And they nearly were on par with Rome at the height of Charlemagne.

The only real "fall" to have occurred is in ancient egypt, mesopotamia, china (Ghengis) and mesoamerica (see Mesa Verde and the fall of the Mayans).
We literally are merely the inheritors of Rome… it never fell, it became western society. And now western society won't die because the machine is undefeatable. It will merely adapt to foreigners. Sure, the demographics may change (though with the sudden right surge I doubt that), the culture will not because it's the same adaptable machine that has adapted since Macedon and Rome. The invaders will lose their culture user… they are more scared of us than we are of them because they know just how invincible that culture is.

We are stuck in a machine that is ALWAYS bleeding to death.
The problem is that it's ignoring race and our old cultures.

Attached: 1516788534265.jpg (960x960, 41.9K)

The chemicals are fucked, that's all you need to know. I don't think this benefits any person, gender, race, etc. It's poisoning us all.

Yet we still have a life expectancy around 80 with that… which is phenomenal considering what things were like 150 years or so ago.

No, you reductionist asshole. If it was lead why did the Eastern half collapse a thousand years later and not at the same time? The US had lead pipes up until the 20s, did it collapse to barbarians? It's a complex issue with no one easy obvious defining factor. And "declining population" is a bigger one than "a few richmen might have developed late onset dementia or some shit."

It's weird, everyone around me are turning girly, yet here I am unable to stop hair growth on all parts of my body. Sisters aren't too happy with that though… they also are hairy… eww

Frank and ostrogoth are two different beasts.

Ostrogoth mainly migrated to Spain while some stayed in northern Italy and formed the genetic basis for Lega Nord nowadays.

It never really collapsed though.. many of the subsequent kingdoms either inherited or immediately reinstalled a roman culture in their kingdoms. They merely made it more medieval.

I usually pass out to old movies on television, but recently I've been trying to turn off screens for a while and go to bed naturally. The problem is I wake up 2-3 times a night, and it takes between 5-30 minutes to go back to sleep every time. I wake up feeling exhausted. Dreaming is fun but it feels like I've been thinking all night.

It did collapse. Stopped existing as a political entity and there was, shall we say, a "sharp decline in cultural sophistication" across most of the Western Empire, I mean picture an Anglo-Saxon wattle-and-daub house.

It is true though there was a degree of continuation of the old order, for example the Ostrogoths that made a kingdom in Italy left the senate in place for up to a couple hundred years after deposing the last emperor. Who was himself a Gothic puppet. The Catholic Church arguably is a sort of remnant. I suppose it's semantics, it certainly collapsed in some ways, continued on in others.

Theoderic definately tried to preserve the roman system, then Justinian's conquest followed. I still think this is merely the east empire conquering the west, only the west now had kings.

Theo also drove out the huns… that's odd for a "barbaric invader".
Don't forget, Rome would have gone from criticising the man heavily before takeover to completely endorsing him. So that's why records are so critical of him prior to takeover - propaganda.