rome was destroyed by imperialistic multiculturalism.
at end of empire there was something like 10% (less maybe if i recall correctly) were ethnically "roman"...
Discussion
*official roman citizens
7 million out of 120 million in the empire...
Rome was destroyed by inefficient monetary and fiscal policy and an excessive reliance on coercion. The various distinct cultural/national identities across a wide geographic region determined where the splits would be. The splits themselves were from Rome losing its ability to fund things and to influence culture and maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
If a large portion of people (not 100% but most) starts to recognize that every single individual has their own identity and yet they are worthy of respect, a libertarian or anarchic split occurs, where there may be broad national identities but there will be little to no coercion mandating collective action, and instead collective actions become voluntary contributions. This has happened in the past in many places, and it will happen again. There is little stopping it besides silly mystical notions of divine right to rule. That is the basic way the causality works, in rough language. The loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
thats yesteryears propaganda for self-hating whites and their anti-white weaponized counterparts: 
if you need contemporary examples, see DETROIT, CHICAGO, SF, NY etc ad infinitum🥱
I think you misread me here because I didn't say anything remotely anti-white or racial. Culture and national boundaries can be along ethnicity but do not have to be, and that is related to the success of the state by means of the perception of its legitimacy to rule over that population.
but you did say that the fall of rome was because of monetary policy and coercian...
it was multiculturalism which is clear by the recent genetic analysis of rome which shows that 80% of rome at time of collapse was non-european...
of course you dont know that because if you did you would have spoken out a long time ago against the same thing happening here...
thus the function of "rome fell cuz muh austrian econ"...
you seem to have a moderns bias and arrested understanding of what the Divine Right To Rule was originally - what the fallen losers did with it in late monarchy is another story...
I might not understand what divine right to rule meant in context before the later empires, but that's irrelevant because I was talking about democracy's divine right to rule in modern times. I was being poetic.