675
676

Red Pill TheoryBased on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]

TL;DR in The Roman Empire : Peace caused Feminism, Feminism and its values caused very low fertility rates + virility drop among men ( they became more and more weak fat apathetic, homosexuality and prostitution became normal ), it resulted in a massive immigration to sustain demography and to do the dirty jobs romans didn't want to do anymore. A new religion came in and grew in followers very quickly. Government public debt skyrocketted. Politics went nuts, leaders were either hated or puppets. Most of the army was made of mercenaries ( paid immigrants because romans didn't want the dirty job anymore ). Romans were about to become a minority in Rome. Mercenaries eventually overran and pillaged the Empire.

My personal theory is this : if a country's fertility rate per woman goes below 2 for a considerable amount of time, it will end in an economical and political crisis. If that country uses immigration to sustain demography, it will end in a civil war.

Edit : I said feminism causes economical crisis... but why ? Someone linked a very nice video explaining a very plausible theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw

Please note that I didn't write any of the following text, it is a comment u / tomek77 / made 7 years ago on r / Equality / making observations about how we're following the same path as the roman empire . It ultimately led me to believe that the western part of the world will pretty much cease to exist in the next 50 years.


Unfortunately, feminism and future is an oxymoron (or fortunately, depending on your point-of-view), as it seems to be unsustainable on the long run.

Based on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries. This is why we have never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short spans at the end of the Roman empire and possibly a few other more ancient civilizations.

Reading the history of the roman Empire brings such glaring similarities with our own civilization, it is as if human social dynamics are literally stuck in a cycle that repeats every couple thousand years (there were two matriarchical, extremely advanced civilizations: one at the end of the Roman empire, 2000 years ago, one possibly at the end of Babylon, 4000 years ago).

For those who enjoy history, here is a short recap of social changes in Rome, 2 millenia ago (most historians focus on military and political facts, but I find the social aspects just as fascinating):

  • ~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)

  • ~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.

  • ~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a "bachelor tax", to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.

  • ~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Vice and massive corruption are rampant, while the new-born Catholic Religion is gaining power (it becomes the religion of the Empire in 380 AD). There is extreme economic, political and military instability: there are 25 successive emperors in half a century (many end up assassinated), the Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war.

  • ~5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago being replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts "selling" parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the "Emperor has no clothes", and overrun and pillage the Empire.

  • humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave); 12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD.

Regarding the Babylonian civilization (~2,000 BC), we have relatively few records, but we do know that they had a very advanced civilization because we found their legislative code written down on stone tablets (yes, they had laws and tribunals, and some of today's commercial code can even be traced back to Babylonian law). They had child support laws (which seems to indicate that there was a family breakdown), and they collapsed presumably due to a "moral breakdown" figuratively represented in the Bible as the "Tower of Babel" (which was inspired by a real tower). Interesting and controversial anecdote: some claim that the Roman Catholic Religion is nothing more than a rewriting and adaptation of an ancient Babylonian religion!


[–]Online_Identity 249 points250 points  (42 children)

Feminism can only happen in ‘first world’ settings (they were first world for their time) where people can live comfortably enough to even think about feminism. When youre busy working on survival and basic life necessities, you dont have time to roleplay feminism. Guys hunt, kill, protect, etc. Girls cook, clean, nurture, etc

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (16 children)

Even in the first world, we've got "masculinism" at the borders, and feminism in the gooey caramel center. No matter what you do, survival requires brutal strength and sacrifice, the kind of which feminism has not yet worked out how to provide.

[–]nrjk 33 points34 points  (11 children)

No matter what you do, survival requires brutal strength and sacrifice, the kind of which feminism has not yet worked out how to provide.

And it never will. Women marry the invaders (or were captured in more primitive times). Look at French women marrying Nazi's, Vietnamese women with American men, today's "pro-refugee" moderate/liberal woman, etc.

Because men are more (biologically) expendable (egg vs. sperm), and are physically bigger/stronger, we have the duty to protect. Feminists would be unable to even conceive of such a notion. Even the most hardcorest, cunty feminist's interests lies in a 'soft' protection-like woman to baby.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 13 points14 points  (1 child)

we have the duty to protect.

I would argue that we have an urge to protect, not duty.

[–]gELSK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

duty to protect

We have as much of a duty to protect as they have a duty to reproduce.

[–]canadianmooserancher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ok but largely irrelevant in any shape or form of what the OP is randomly throwing together. meritocracy dies in all those cases because power in those instances don't allow for it. so eventually all the levers of power is filled with corruption, incompetency or aristocrats born with silver-spoons in their asses. i just don't see the connection when these others things cause so much more damage.

theories should be more concise and more factual, especially in this forum where it's kind of just emerging as a field of thought on male and female relations.

edit: spelling is awful, lord have mercy on me

[–]Jigsus 21 points22 points  (19 children)

But for technology to evolve and humans to evolve we need free time. How do you propose we evolve without falling into a trap of navel gazing?

[–]NSFWIssue 55 points56 points  (5 children)

No species avoids natural limiting factors within their populations. Wolves don't ration elk, they'll hunt them to extinction then starve to death if they're able. It happens all the time in nature, and humans are part of nature.

We don't exercise as much control over our fate as we think.

[–]Jigsus 12 points13 points  (1 child)

We should find a way to exercise that control.

[–]ProfessorDemon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Once we develop technologies that provide complete control over birth rates, this will no longer be an issue. However, there will be many moral hurdles to get over alongside technological ones to get to this point.

[–]Velebit 1 point2 points  (1 child)

that is actually wrong, there are members of the packs that kill of excess members, usually kids look at "silver eye lioness killing cubs" you see how the alpha female controls the number of members by killing offspring, even her own

[–]MCDownlow 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Technology usually "evolves" out of necessity. An example is the steam engine. The medieval European economy and energy base was based on wood. Ships, homes, heating, metallurgy, even pipes for sanitation and water delivery, all needed wood. As population grew the forests shrank. Eventually, it became too expensive to use wood for heating. People began using coal.

The first modern industrial use of steam engines were water pumps for mining deeper to get to new coal deposits. The Industrial Revolution was caused by the necessity of using coal as an energy base. Happy people don't make history and necessity is the mother of invention. The Dark Ages ended not simply because of "progress", but because of over population. In turn, we won't enter the Solar/Nuclear Age until we exhaust our coal and oil deposits. Humans don't change unless we have to.

[–]Online_Identity 23 points24 points  (10 children)

Idk, everyone needs to realize that focusing as much time and energy on the sub-par topic of feminism as we do could be better spent on more resourceful things. ending world hunger, solving homelessness, etc

[–]2Archterus 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Some of these issues are more than tangentially related to feminism. Homelessness for example. Male homelessness, who cares! Female, watch the response. Many men (certainly not all), have found themselves on the bench after they have been divorce raped, or the traditional job structure has evaporated favouring part time, service/admin female friendly work rather than manufacturing/heavy industry. Or killed themselves as life and traditional sources of meaning have fallen apart around them. Whilst your comment has merit, feminism is more malignant than implied

[–]greatslyfer 3 points4 points  (1 child)

You can say the same thing about art, philosophy, democracy, humans rights.

Not a strong argument against feminism, just saying.

[–]Shaman6624 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes as a general rule, but if a girl wants to hunt you gave her a spear and noone gives a fuck. That has always been the case. Feminism isn't even fighting about real things. Those are just a smokescreen to hide that feminism is a sexual powerplay strategy.

[–]canadianmooserancher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is another thing. how is it responsible for things... when it was barely nascent at the time?? or non existent in virtually all historical accounts. it's damned hard to make claims the OP makes without addressing the other causes that cause empires and civs to sink like a stone.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 81 points82 points  (37 children)

humanity falls back into the Bronze Age

It wasn't that bad. Contrary to the media image, the barbarians weren't all that barbaric. They get a bad rap because the traditions of law and civil order were largely inherited from classic Greek thought, but the vast majority of social traditions came from them, just spruced up under the color of Christianity.

[–]Sennmeistr 21 points22 points  (28 children)

Indeed, it wasn't that bad as one often hears in the movies or mediocre documentaries. Allow me to add some points.

It was only temporarily, and only restricted to some geographical areas, a time of pillage and devastation, mainly caused by the Huns and their aftereffects. It was not a dark time of superstition, ignorance or brutality. The Romans were technologically advanced but not necessarily less superstitious than their descendants, as for them the world was a mythological place of gods and spirits. Since a lot of knowledge was either lost or destroyed, the term "dark" was introduced to refer to the time right after the decline of Rome, a situation comparable to the collapse of Bronze Age dynasties around 1200 BC.

However, a decline after the fall of the Western Roman Empire was a matter of fact. "Dark" is justified when looking at social and economic factors: illiteracy rose rapidly, but still, some knowledge was bunkered and kept locked in monasteries where it was, luckily, copied over and over again. (Much of ancient Greek and Roman knowledge was also discovered and preserved by Muslim conquerors)

Stone buildings vanished as an indicator of an overall decline of wealth and architectural ambition. Roman infrastructure, for example aqueducts or roads, the latter were famous for being almost indesctructible and extraodinarily straight and accurate, were either still used to some extent, or relinquished. The knowledge of how to make concrete for instance was forgotten.

Also, long-distance trading, as it was known in Roman times, collapsed and was replaced by local markets. The population, once concentrated in town centers, contracted and disbursed largely as a result of the trade collaps. Population growth was largely determined by the ability of local agriculture.

Most distinctively, mining and iron smelting in almost all of northern and western Europe decreased to Bronze Age levels. (But quickly rose some centuries later)

I would also like to add that Europe, as a whole continent, cannot be generalized as civilization and technology thrived elsewhere. Things weren't as bad in the Eastern Roman Empire and to some extent in the "Barbarian" kingdoms of Southern Europe.

[–]DPestWork 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, just for clarification, only the Western half of the Roman Empire evaporated. The Eastern half remained for many more centuries and remained a cultural epicenter. I don't disagree with the OP and will have to study more about the cultural changes mentioned.

[–]Thrawy124 9 points10 points  (2 children)

I mean, when the Romans withdrew from Britain, they felt guilty for abandoning the people, and so left blue prints etc. They were ignored and rich kings fed off of the poor. All I can say is thank God for the Vikings.

[–]Velebit 6 points7 points  (0 children)

you do realize vikings were more egalitarian to women than christian english? xD

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]grimlocksgauntlet 15 points16 points  (3 children)

    This is interesting. Especially the comments. But what concerns me more is the attitudes and values—or lack thereof that I am witnessing in the West.

    When I was told the middle class was diminishing I thought it was bullshit.

    It is.

    It’s financial and it’s also a huge problem with every man out for himself because welfare programs are about to be pulled and the squeeze is upon people of the United States who earn lower wages and pay higher prices due to inflation, debasement of the dollar and corporate greed.

    You can live the same quality of life in South America and Mexico for a fifth of the cost of the United States with education, medicine and insurance much cheaper.

    And there the women have better attitudes. There are way less cucks and beta because of the Latino enculturation.

    What can one do?

    It will get worse before it gets better.

    [–]Leonidas_79 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    This is it. I love when I go back home to serbia im in heaven because it’s still very much a patriarchal society. You can tell just by walking down the street. Women are feminine and men are masculine as fuck - you can almost feel the testosterone wafting through the air.

    North American males are fucking zeros compared to less developed parts of the world.

    [–]AwesomeCool909 130 points131 points  (56 children)

    Read Unwin's book, he lists 85 more examples (including Rome 2.0, the Byzantine Empire).

    The short hand is feminism leads to hypergamy overdrive, causing the low status men give up (unless they are Chad, but they can't please girls forever either), these men stop caring about society and refuse to upkeep it (or begin fighting fiercer and fiercer to get status, til the blood begins spilling).

    I find it funny that polygamy and feminism go hand in hand.

    Edit: I think the reason causes weak lazy feminine men is due to these two reasons

    1. Women seek temporary polygamous relationships (chase the Chad) and men are then raised by single mothers and think that is how the average human acts (no exposure).

    2. Men quickly become lazy as there is no point to try anymore (men's entire purpose to man up is to get a mate), jobs were always incredibly difficult and unrewarding...but now they have less need for money then ever and it offered less rewards then ever. Those that kept working became more hostile, fighting the ever increasing standards to attract a girl.

    [–]clme 31 points32 points  (45 children)

    Your theory seems to imply that we should soon witness a mass conversion of blue pill men into MGTOW/herbivore men...Yet, often on this sub-reddit we hear that blue pill men are so indoctrinated / deluded, that they are beyond salvation (aka swallowing the red pill). Thoughts?

    [–]NSFWIssue 54 points55 points  (5 children)

    The biggest cuck I've ever known got fired a few weeks ago following a sexual harrassment investigation at his workplace. He literally talks all the time unironically about things like manspreading, mansplaining, how people in power oppress the weak, etc, etc. But being a cuck didn't protect him from an angry feminist.

    I think that's the end game, when these men start to realize that they are not, in fact, in line for good boy points. They've just been permanently neutered, unwanted and unneeded.

    We're experiencing a culture-wide shit test. This is just selection at work. And all the nice boys will realize their folly in the end.

    [–]APSTNDPhy 25 points26 points  (1 child)

    I call that femsplaining:

    'When an angry, manhating, self proclaimed victim and feminist uses a made up word to describe a factually inaccurate concept to a man.'

    [–]Incel9876 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I call that femsplaining: 'When an angry, manhating, self proclaimed victim and feminist uses a made up word to describe a factually inaccurate concept to a man.'

    Damn, lol. Logged in and made this comment, to have in my post history, in case I ever want to find this wonderful definition again.

    [–]Origami84 17 points18 points  (0 children)

    I wouldnt be surprised either to know he actually molested someone. These male feminists types are all untrustworthy sleazebags.

    [–]Actanonverba11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Yup. Just look at Weinstein and other Holywood liberals; Conyers and now Al Franken in Congress. When you play the game of Feminism, you win or you die. If you are a male feminist, you just die. Male feminists are the footsolders of Gynocentrism, and they are disposable.

    [–]1GroundhogLiberator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Same with Louis C.K. - he was the poster child for male feminists. The minute there was more profit in attacking him than supporting him, women jumped ship.

    [–][deleted]  (36 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (29 children)

      I personally think that fertility is so low only because women are hardcoded to marry up while men are not. An easy solution to this would be to provide a very unfair advantage to men, my guess is that's what they'll do in the east when the west explodes... the west is doomed anyway

      [–][deleted]  (21 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 17 points18 points  (14 children)

        It was once one of the most important decisions of your life due to the fact, that divorcing was not that easy accessable as it is today. So everybody had to make a good decision unless they don't want to fuck up their whole lifes.

        You omit the fact that marriages were more often than not arranged by parents to and therefore there was nothing for you to decide upon.

        On top pf that remember that mere being married doesn't guarantee ANYTHING for a man that he would not have if he were to remain single. Back then it was about economic/social standing, not about natural m-f dynamics. Just b/c you're married doesn't mean the marriage itself is a reflection of proper m-f dynamic any.

        [–]Origami84 16 points17 points  (13 children)

        For the single man, it garanteed nothing. For society at large, it ensured that most men would work to support their kids, and that those kids would have a father figure.

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

        I'm done watching it and wow her conclusion is awesome, thanks for sharing

        [–]team-evil 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        I wasn't going to watch that link until I saw your reply and my God it is captivating and I think absolutely true. I sure as hell know I personally don't feel the desire to break my back just to support a bunch of kids that aren't mine. Xbox time.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        I've been watching this girl talking for like 3 hours now, it's so good

        [–]team-evil 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Damn you....I've got shit to do....but now I'm going down the rabbit hole.

        [–]EXQUISITE_WIZARD 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        she's amazing. Watch her video on feminism and the disposable male next.

        [–]Soulofbuddha 17 points18 points  (0 children)

        men are biologically superior to women, so we dont need any unfair social advantages for women to be able to marry up. In a meritocracy the average man will be a catch for the average woman. However with feminism, women are given unfair privileges for free by blue pill men, which inflates these womens self percieved value, so they think they deserve better men than they actually are worth.

        [–]Chaddeus_Rex 6 points7 points  (3 children)

        Fertility is low because women were put on an equal level with men and this means that they had to fuck upwards, meaning that most men don't fit their criteria anymore.

        Thats why having 'more educated girls' in third world countries actually hurts rather than helps them.

        [–]Velebit 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        women have good fertility in Israel but are fully if not more equal and educated than in west

        its about culture not law

        law says agreements have to be respected yet western culture is gynocentric so western courts throw away pre-marriage agreements

        there was a comparative study comparing one small Slavic country and Germany and the number one factor for women deciding to have a child in the Slavic country is having a secure job, while in Germany it was reverse. Cultural priorities are either materialistic or good.

        I would bet its the same for all other historically "ambitious" cultures.

        [–]Chaddeus_Rex 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        women have good fertility in Israel but are fully if not more equal and educated than in west its about culture not law

        Isreal is gynocentric as fuck too. Feminism is huge there. The reason women have kids in Isreal is because they are in a preptual state of war. And fear is an aphordisiac. I am sure the situation would be the same in the US, if US was in a state of preptual war.

        here was a comparative study comparing one small Slavic country and Germany and the number one factor for women deciding to have a child in the Slavic country is having a secure job, while in Germany it was reverse. Cultural priorities are either materialistic or good.

        And yet Slavic countries have some of the lowest birth rates in Europe. Slavic fertility decreased the moment the education of their women increased.

        [–]Velebit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        oh those fanatical arabs! take me David, make me a lot of warriors :b

        maybe that is the reason why egalitarian vikings and Scythians had stable societies

        Actually USA has around 1.9 which is more than Iran and similar to Turkey

        Ireland is among top 5 countries by women with college degrees and has a 2 kids per woman and also a very small immigrant community which means most are native Irish women making kids

        Slavic fertility follows quite generally their GDP growth unless skewed by massive emigration into richer EU countries (Poland for example) of young people especially couples who get married after college.

        Yeah but economic situation in most slavic countries is shit xD youth unemployment of 50% and more http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Estimated_mean_age_of_leaving_the_parental_household,_by_sex,_2013.png

        [–]PsyMonk- 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        I think the East is doomed. Asia is razing their environment to the ground and Europe is literally dismantling as Muslims invaded it... I sometimes think of where I could move away from the West, but Australia's cucked & fuckeeeeeeed. Africa's a battlefield. South America's a criminal mess. Honestly I wanna move to Mars.

        [–]Velebit 4 points5 points  (2 children)

        how about, mongols win war, embrace islam and patriarchy and start to decline, how about norse embrace christianity and patriarchy, start to decline, how about bulgarians, hungarians and others do the same and also decline

        how about lithuanians and scythians win wars and become patriarchal and decline

        byzantine empire went through same bs rome did and still expanded, almost retook all west and went for another thousand years

        bull shit

        [–]1GroundhogLiberator 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Hard times create strong men.

        Strong men create good times.

        Good times create weak men.

        Weak men create hard times.

        [–]hawkeaglejesus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Other countries may still have a chance, but Sweden is already halfway through step 6.

        [–]tkoubek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        If you think about it, our current western civilization is on decay and the patriarchal civilization that will come and take the lead would be Islam. Why? Because that mix of religion, ideology makes them stronger than us (ie: no values crisis like we have) and the fact that they are ready to fight for imposing their way of life (same as Judeo-Christian did thousands years ago) makes Islam the civilization that could replace ours.

        [–]biglaughingcock 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        porn, pocket pussies, medical marijuana will solve that right

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        Which book is this? Can't find it on Google.

        [–]senordustball 5 points6 points  (2 children)

        I think the book he's talking about is "Sex and Culture" by J. D. Unwin. Can someone confirm?

        [–]Brazilian_Slaughter 39 points40 points  (4 children)

        Europe didn't fall into darkness until the 17th century. The real dark ages were the períod between the fall of Rome and the end of the constant barbarian invasions and raids. 5th-8th century was the worst stretch of it.

        Late Antiquity had their own World War in the form of the last Roman-Persian war, starring Eastern Romans, Persians, Avars, Slavs, Gokturks, Khazars, Arabs, etc. Like the first world war, it killed Late Antiquity and paved the way for Islam.

        Charlemagne on the West and Eastern Roman victories over Avars and Bulgars stopped the decline.

        Feudalism existed because European Christians living during the collapse of the Carolinglian Empire were pressed between Berber pirates and muslim invaders, Avar invaders, Magyar raiders and viking raiders and invaders.

        By the millenium, the high middle ages had started and it was generally a pretty good períod for progress and European civilization.

        Climate factors a lot into the fall of Rome. It drove the Huns west, which sent a domino of barbarians into Rome to escape. Huns got fought off, but things were still bad. Bad starvation too.

        The Nobility at the time was very corrupt and hated paying their taxes. Lots of Emperors died when Emperors tried to reform.

        Honestly, the Empire died with Majoran. After him it was just puppets of nobles and gothic magister militums like Stilcho.

        Justinian and Belisarius did a hail mary but the Gothic War was honestly a mess. Then came the plague of justinian.

        [–]Rabalaz 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Take my upvote for this knowledge dump.

        [–]Leonidas_79 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        Watching Vikings now I’m like “Aaaaaah the dark ages!!!”

        [–]alucardarian 7 points8 points  (2 children)

        This is utter bullshit. Honestly this post reads like someone trying to prove how stupid people are on this sub by baiting responses from this literal shitpost. The rise and fall of great civilizations is always the same. Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men make hard times. It's human nature. Greed and corruption will always arise in any position of power and that's what weakens even the strongest Empires. Religions try to curb this with rewards of eternal life and punishments of eternal damnation, but even then corruption creeps in. "We have to stick together" is the most basic and fundamental idea of civilization. But I'd argue that the concept of civilization has evolved futher than we're able to handle it. We're still bound by millions of years of tribal living of at most a couple hundred or thousand of people and the thought of nations of millions with the same values and loyalty to each other goes against our nature. Why not be selfish and take more than you need? They might be born within the same land as you, but they're not family.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

        [–]SaintHolland 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        Abandoning gender roles is like cutting off the branch we are sitting on. It is turning our back on the very thing that got us here in the first place.

        Western history in all its glory must be taught in schools. That is the first step to solving this problem.

        [–]GEN_GOTHMOG 54 points55 points  (93 children)

        When the sexual market place is deregulated such that women are no longer beholden to social and legal regulations pertinent to their sexuality, society begins its downward spiral into chaos.

        Now we have a small number of men with the attraction power servicing the majority of women, whilst the remaining men are left out in the cold.

        Back in the 60s most men were guaranteed a wife, and thats because womens sexuality was regulated. Once taboo and rare sexual practices are now commonplace and women have absolute autonomy over their sexual appetites.

        Thanks liberalism, you've royally fucked us all.

        [–]metallicdrama 4 points5 points  (6 children)

        This is over regulation of the sexual marketplace. Complexity = Fraud and loopholes. Patriarchy is a very simple system that doesn't leave room for interpretation. Absolute and clear standards vs arbitrary fuzzy logic.

        [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (5 children)

        Just don't get your hopes too high that patriarchy will "solve" woman nature (cheating mostly, which mis most important for most men here).

        [–]coco5440 27 points28 points  (80 children)

        You see the problem but you've misdiagnosed the cause. Over the last 40 years marriages between low to moderate income men and women have indeed become more unstable. Marriages between educated middle and upper middle class men and women have actually become more stable over this period. The downfall of the hard working blue collar guy was not the 60s counterculture. Rather it was the move away from New Deal policies and labor unions. By voting for the GOP since Nixon in 68 blue collar guys have fucked themselves. The upshot is that today millions of guys are so economically marginalized that they can't support families and so bitter that they can't nurture families. Is it any wonder women don't want to marry these guys.

        [–]chaseemall 9 points10 points  (7 children)

        I would counter by saying that the existence of the welfare state and, in particular, the rise of Section 8 benefits for single mothers, disencentivized women marrying working class men. Women that can only land working class men could just as easily get the support of the state, and now they don't have to put up with a man while they do so.

        [–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (6 children)

        You do realize that Section 8 has been contracting for many years.

        [–]chaseemall 1 point2 points  (5 children)

        You and I are working with slightly different time scales. When I say rise, I mean going from not incentivizing single motherhood, to incentivizing it. Of course, now that all the jobs for working class men in manufacturing were destroyed in the recession, and thus there is even less incentive for women to marry working class men, you don't need the same level of funding to incentivize not marrying working class men.

        Anyway, do you get my argument?

        [–]Jigsus 7 points8 points  (53 children)

        That's an intriguing analysis. It's true that an unsustainable economic situation can cause families to fall apart. Would a liberal social system with a strong economy stimulate stronger families?

        [–]coco5440 15 points16 points  (52 children)

        I believe it would. I lived in Canada for over 20 years and observed a more stable country. Canada is a significantly more liberal country than the United States. Marriage is not venerated in Canada the way it is here. Many Canadian families are started by committed couples who are not officially married. But contrary to what American conservatives would predict Canadian families are much more stable. A significantly greater percentage of Canadian children grow up living with both their biological parents. Its my understanding that this is even more true in Western Europe.

        I would argue that strong safety nets keep families together. Here in the United States economic stress leads to the breakup of many families. I see this in almost every domestic violence case that comes across my desk.

        Also, in more egalitarian societies there is less pressure on women to traded up and, therefore, less branch swinging.

        I'm starting to regret my decision to move to the USA. I thought Canada was boring and I wanted to be were the action was (a two edge sword for sure).

        [–]Jigsus 17 points18 points  (28 children)

        I'm actually from Quebec but I moved away from Canada because of the low wages and what I considered to be a failing housing market (caused by the policy of importing billionaires from other countries).

        Western Europe is pretty much in full on SJW mode right now. I don't want to give credence to the crazies that call it failing but the SJW policies are causing a crisis of sexes. Nobody knows what it means to be a man anymore or a woman. This is causing people to shun family structures. The best and brightest are leading depressed branch swinging lifestyles (men and women).

        Meanwhile it's the immigrants from Africa and the Middle East that are propping up the statistics on birthrate and families.

        Just yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting an egyptian man in Sweden. He speaks only Arabic. He does do some pottery for his community. He had one official wife and two unofficial ones. 25 children. They all live off benefits as his pottery business is all under the table.

        [–]Chaddeus_Rex 6 points7 points  (2 children)

        I dunno where you get that Canadian marriages are more stable. The divorce rates in Canada are similar to that of the United States (around 60-70%), marriage rates are falling and children aren't being had by whites. Moreover, if you think Canadian women are less likely to branch swing, you have not lived in Toronto or the GTA. Arguably, women here branch swing here more than anywhere else in the world.

        [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (15 children)

        I think you'd find that the most egalitarian societies tend to be the most ethnically homogeneous. If you compare whites in Canada and America, you'll find that the statistics are very similar. These trends you've pointed out are largely due to differences in demographics

        [–]SammyD1st 2 points3 points  (3 children)

        Canada's total fertility rate is significantly below that of the US.

        [–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        But Canada admits more immigrants so it's all good.

        [–]SammyD1st 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        stimulate stronger families

        So, contra what you just said... Canada doesn't in fact stimulate stronger families then?

        [–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        According to the Canadian Census: In 2016, 7 in 10 children aged 0 to 14 (69.7%) were living with both of their biological or adoptive parents and without stepsiblings or half‑siblings. Seems pretty good to me.

        [–]Deep_freeze202 6 points7 points  (14 children)

        This is completely off base, economics are a small part of the equation the main factor is unbound hypergamy and a liberalized society that allows both sexes to act out on their baser instincts with virtually no consequences. Your whole comment is nothing but a pathetic attempt to shift blame onto Republicans, if what you said was remotely accurate women in relationships with high earning men would rarely ever cheat and we all know that isn't the case.

        The core of the problem is women's nature being unrestricted and a feminized society.

        [–]chaseemall 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        I think economics does have a part to play here, but not quite as this guy says. Women are financially incentivized by the welfare state to be single mothers, and are not counter-incentivized to settle down into a nuclear family. Combine this with the cultural influences in Hollywood, the academic feminists, and the advent of birth control, and you have a recipe for disaster. Of course it hits working class families the hardest, but let's be honest, what social ill doesn't?

        [–]Deep_freeze202 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I'm not dismissing the economic factors involved simply pointing out that it isn't the major cause. The welfare state, destruction of the nuclear family, Hollywood, feminism and birth control all fall into the liberal side of things. This guy is trying to flip it around and blame Republicans which is simply ludicrous, obviously a leftist blue pill cuck who refuses to accept reality and acknowledge that the left holds virtually all responsibility for the degeneracy of society, the foundation of the right is maintaining traditional values and preserving the family unit. Basically the guy is a fucking idiot.

        [–]rigbed 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        I doubt it’s the GOP. I think it’s that every administration since Nixon has not ended feminism and feminism is hypergamous.

        [–]coco5440 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Women are hypergamous -- we all know that -- the question becomes how to deal with that? You can try to fight a loosing rearguard action and try to put feminism back in the bottle or you can adapt to new realities. The more unequal a society becomes the more incentive women have to unbridle their hypergamous nature. By pursuing policies that ameliorate inequality we limit the benefits to women of branch swinging and give ordinary guys a fighting chance.

        [–]blindface 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        Thanks liberalism, you've royally fucked us all.

        And what is the alternative, exactly? Tyranny? Forcing women to stay at home, to stay with potentially abusive men?

        No, I'd rather let society play out as intended. If it is to fall, so be it. How arrogant must we be to think that it matters if our society remains on top.

        What does it matter if another society takes over? The natural order is competition - fighting to be on top is a struggle for every cell, for every species, for every group, for every society. There is no Utopia, and nothing stays on top forever.

        Liberal or conservative - either path will eventually lead to the fall. All the matters is that humanity learns something, and tries to do a little better the next time.

        [–]GEN_GOTHMOG 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        It's happened before and we didn't learn from it. That's the frustrating part of all this.

        [–]blindface 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        We have pretty toys so we think we're smarter than our ancestors.

        [–]kosta123 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        Would suggest you take a gander at The Lessons of History by Will Durant.

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        thank you very much, sounds very interesting, will order soon
        Could you please write down some other books, even not related to this subject, that you find worth reading ?

        [–]Nicolay77 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Well, the first big collapse of civilizations we know of was about in 1177 BC, when the sea peoples invaded Egypt and the other great Bronze civilizations, probably with the two innovations of cheap iron (when compared to the expensive bronze), and horses (against just infantry).

        That series of invasions had little to do with feminism as far as we know.

        Not to mention that current Islam was shaped by the siege of Baghdad by the Mongols.

        [–]asapkokeman 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        if you honestly think that feminism was one of the major causes of the collapse of the roman empire, you're an absolute fucking moron. It's troubling that this is so upvoted.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        did you even read the post ?

        [–][deleted]  (34 children)

        [deleted]

        [–]chaseemall 7 points8 points  (10 children)

        He's got a ton of details wrong, but the basic idea is correct I think.

        Is "Feminism chronologically preempts societal decline," a sound claim? Yes.

        [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 5 points6 points  (9 children)

        I think if you're basing the correctness of a theory on whether it "sounds right" you're making an undeducated guess.

        [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 1 point2 points  (19 children)

        That this piece of masturbatory garbage was so highly upvoted indicts, in order, the American education system for how poorly it spits out its students, and this sub as a circlejerk that will accept anything that corroborates its views no matter how stupid.

        It's what people want to hear, regardless if it's the truth.

        I think the origin of this "Rome -feminism" bs looked like that exactly: tomek77 wrote what he wanted to write, Heartiste read what he wanted to read, as did TRP.

        Arguing with historical facts is pointless at this moment b/c OP is not a factual representation of what happened, it's an appeal to emotions on top of pandering to the target readers.

        [–]Velebit 8 points9 points  (11 children)

        I have thoroughly studied this subject and it's wrong.

        1.) It only takes account the fact that legendary Rome (the Rome before reliably recorded history) had strict and total patriarchy and changed that and that exactly during the change they skyrocketed into a big power

        2.) It ignores the fact that once the Empire became Christian and retook old rites that changed nothing.

        3.) It ignores the fact that Eastern Empire didn't crumble but instead reconquered half of western Empire and held it for hundreds of years until Islam rose.

        4.) It ignores the contrary examples like feminist Sparta defeating patriarchal Athens, egalitarian Norse destroying patriarchal Christians in England and Ireland, egalitarian pagan Lithuanians defeating patriarchal crusader Teutonic order and conquering half of Russia and Islamic White Horde...

        5.) It does not try to apply the same logic on Mongol empire which went into totally different direction. Relatively egalitarian Mongols conquered much more patriarchal cultures and started crumbling once they embraced Islam.

        It ignores a lot of other things like why Africa and Southeast Asia (generally the most patriarchal places) have never been anything historically impressive.

        For Norse, Mongols and Lithuanians the decline started shortly after they embraced a more patriarchal religion, same with Hungarians and Bulgarians.

        Scythians are another example, they were in their early days famed for their female warriors but when they absorbed a lot of judeo-christian territory at midpoint, and at later stages they became more patriarchal, and became weak and declined.

        Historical evidence just does not support the connection between how little rights women have and success, it seems rather reverse. The freer the women are to choose the more the men have to work to get anywhere. If everyone is guaranteed a woman who cant leave his ass no matter what, arranged by your daddy and her daddy who cant wait to get rid of her, dont you think your incentive and ambition is a bit, at least a tiny bit smaller? ITS A LOT SMALLER!

        also if ur a narcissist you are barred from talking about what motivates normal people

        What you can take as a historical lesson is that great structures start to crumble once they abandon the pattern that made them great

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (10 children)

        again, I never said that patriarchy is related to success wealth and well-being

        [–]mcpaulus 1 point2 points  (9 children)

        No, but you claimed feminism was related to downfall, which he says isnt true

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (8 children)

        this is just retarded, as if I said every nation failing is because of women... please read and process the original post before commenting

        [–]2chazthundergut 21 points22 points  (4 children)

        CORRECTION: Based on past history, it seems that all civilizations that achieve global hegemony cease to exist in just a few centuries.

        [–]Rabalaz 11 points12 points  (2 children)

        I like where you're going with this but let me take it a bit further.

        CORRECTION: Based on past history, it seems that all civilizations cease to exist in just a few centuries.

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        Rome lasted 2000 years. The Roman Republic lasted 500, and the Roman Empire (including the ERE) lasted 1500.

        [–]gardenofbacchus 16 points17 points  (11 children)

        You guys get so close to the Truth and then for whatever reason, when it's staring at you in the face, refuse it and divert around it.

        Feminism is a WEAPON. It is weaponised, it has been created. Women didn't come up with this. This isn't an organic movement. This is a psychological weapon designed to do EXACTLY what it's done and is continuing to do to society - which is subvert the nuclear family, completely degenerate society and flip gender roles on their head, eliminating normal and healthy male female relationships.

        Women are the medium by which this degeneracy and subversion is being pushed. The female mind is the perfect target of corruption because it's malleable and intrinsically NEEDS leadership and authority to follow. If man, her husband/partner/men in her life are no longer the authority, guess who becomes God? And when the female mind becomes so degenerate and brainwashed, what happens to society? It devolves into literal slavery, with brainwashed men forfeiting traditional masculinity out of necessity to attract a mate who in turn has been brainwashed into forfeiting natural femininity.

        It's time to wake up and understand what is going on, and stop beating around the bush. Whether you like it or not what is happening to this society is an intentional inversion of God aimed at rendering you a miserable, lost, apathetic slave who replaces God with Man.

        It's time to ask "why does this subreddit exist?", it's time to stop being intellectually lazy and stubborn and to actually understand WHY we are where we are instead of using faux atheistic evolutionary crutches like "this is just how human beings are, women are animals, we are all apes slaves to our impulses "

        Until you truly crave understanding and truth as to what is happening to the world, this sub will leave you miserable, lost and angry.

        [–][deleted]  (5 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Ok, I'm listening. What do you suggest as the next move then?

          [–]PsyMonk- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          We found the next move.... We're doing it. Subtract & retreat. Take the money with you.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]

            [–]chaseemall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            What specifically are you referring to?

            [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

            I like your observations of the circular historical cycles of western civilization. But this analysis doesn't take into account Asia and the Islamic caliphates. Although feminism affects all political system in today's global climate, so the collapse will be eccompassing all of humanity.

            [–]tailingloop 15 points16 points  (4 children)

            Why not post any sources for further reading? Sounds like you're pulling the conclusions out of your own ass.

            [–]Rabalaz 3 points4 points  (1 child)

            or even better, repost this onto RslashAskHistorians and and ask how many holes this premise has.

            [–]Your_Coke_Dealer 2 points3 points  (4 children)

            Simple explanation:

            Feminism 'empowers' women to be pickier in men, or not want them at all. That lowers their reproductive rate, leads to population decline, and thus weakens the manpower a civilization needs to continue

            [–]Rosace_89 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            Some of you may be interested in a socio-political essay by Sir John Glubb - The Fate of Empires

            [–]BokehClasses 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Good post OP. But centuries? Lol. More like a few decades.

            Economic collapse is coming real soon. The welfare state is out of control, free healthcare (not USA) is out of control, immigration is out of control, racial tensions are at a all time high, no average person can buy a fucking house, monogamy is dead, terrorist attacks are at an all time high (from both our own citizens and "peaceful" foreigners), faith in the economy is at a all time low (not so much the USA) as seen by the rise in crypto... and the list goes on.

            I expect a collapse in the next 2-3 years. But this won't be enough to kill society. It will be the decades after which finish it off.

            And that's not mentioning the possibility of an attack on the electrical grid. A friend who works as an engineer in a power plant tells me that they are extremely negligent with counter terrorist exercises. If a terrorist EMP went off, it would just take 2-3 days without power for a highly populated city to become a a war zone. There will be no rapid police response, no internet, no lights, no surveillance. A criminal's paradise.

            We are so divided that we just can't work together as a collective anymore (no, I'm not talking about communism). People actually think individualism is what we should strive for. Fucking lol. Give me one example of a great individualistic society? You can't. Individualism just benefits the selfish, and the human race can't progress that way. All great societies have been patriarchies with collectivism. The collectivism usually came from homogeneity of culture/race or a religion.

            HOWEVER, I'm not against individualism in the current time because this society is too far gone to ever go back to collectivism. Collectivism requires the collective, it will not work when the majority are selfish (like we have today).

            As the MGTOW say, let's enjoy the decline :)

            [–]Lambdal7 2 points3 points  (9 children)

            This theory beats itself. Consider these two forms of civilizations.

            1. One, where women aren't really considered human, but sub-human and are there to cook, birth babies, but aren't really allowed to gain education, get raped frequently and just have to suck it up.
            2. One, where women can gain an education, start business, lead countries, invent x-ray diagnostic, speak up when they are raped, where they are considered equal.

            Which one is a civilization? The first one, where half of the population is considered and treated as sub-human and doesn't really have human rights? You can look at arabic countries. Do you consider Saudi-Arabia, Iran etc. progressive countries? Pretty sure not.

            [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            Wow great post, very though provoking. As cliched as it sounds, history definitely does repeat

            [–]phoneticau 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            100% hit the nail on the head, the west will be the next fall like the roman empire was

            [–]Leonidas_79 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            In a weird way I hope I’ll be alive to see it.

            [–]canadianmooserancher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            each time i hear about feminism destroying civilization i always notice no one extra talks about corruption, macro economics or virtually anything else that actually plays a role in it.

            next thing i'm gonna read is eomthing about the Spanish empire falling because of red pill theory, when it was their over inflation of the silver dollar and autocracies don't allow for meritocracy. you're going to end up with a dozen shitty leaders who will sink it, whether together or in one shot of failure EI: alexander the great? or the fucking shame of this father?

            so before looking deeply into NOTHING. remember most civ's die when meritocracy is eliminated. dumb dumbs stay in levers of power, this is ongoing from thousands of years until now.

            i don't see this feminism thing holding the candle to other items.

            EDIT: the word i'm looking for is erroneous. remind me again how many self proclaimed emperors there were? that by the end they were basically fighting generals with super loyal armies who were self proclaimed Caesars. i seldom find myself wondering what feminists think of the roman empire, because it is largely irrelevant. sorry i just don't feel OP post is making any sense, even if he was on the feminist side of things and was trying to make a point... the time period really didn't have much space for OP random factoids leading to this random conclusion

            [–]icedupsmackhead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Good post, I find the topic very interesting. The dark ages are called as such for a reason. And then the enlightenment rolled around again, and the cycle starts over. I truly believe we are (the west at least) in the period of cultural and moral decline that will directly precede total cultural collapse. Happy days.

            [–]_Aaronstotle 5 points6 points  (5 children)

            Rome fell cause it had a slave economy and was too big for its own good

            [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            Multiple factors contributed to Rome's decline, not just their "slave economy."

            [–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 4 points5 points  (2 children)

            Whites enslaving whites, or Arabs and blacks enslaving blacks, or every racial group enslaving their own people since the dawn of agriculture waaay before Christipher Columbus' dad dumped his load into CC's mom. No one ever talks about that.

            [–]Leonidas_79 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            Blacks enslaving blacks is basically the reason that Africa is so fucked right now. Their societies completely collapsed once they started selling their prisoners of war to the Europeans.

            It’s crazy how the nearest example is less than 300 years old and here western society stands, blissfully unaware of the lessons we could learn from it.

            [–]mcpaulus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            First of all, people are talking are talking about it, second of all, why should it be talked about in this context?

            [–]Rabalaz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Shhh. Don't burst their bubble.

            [–]coco5440 11 points12 points  (62 children)

            The counter to this argument is that the most egalitarian countries are doing the best. The worlds most prosperous countries include all of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. All of which are more egalitarian than the USA. Citizens in these countries live better than we do. On the other hand most of the world's poorest countries still cling to traditional patriarchal values.

            The problem isn't women having autonomy. The problem is that in the United States many people (male and female) exercise their autonomy poorly.

            [–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[🍰] 37 points38 points  (24 children)

            But the counter to that argument is that they became egalitarian after they had prospered...

            Which means that egalitarianism is not the reason for prosperity.

            [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 6 points7 points  (19 children)

            You can look at Middle East if you want examples of how incredibly primitive is to predict how a culture, civilization or a country will fare based on whether they are a patriarchy or not. They have strong patriarchy for over a thousand of years now and they managed to stop living in sandstone huts ONLY b/c they have shitload of oil. Not to mention they went through massive up/down movements along the way, from being irrelevant to being first empire on the planet at one point. None of which had ANYTHING to do with women being equal or not.

            [–]Deep_freeze202 12 points13 points  (1 child)

            Youre failing to take into account that the middle East has been ruled by an oppressive totalitarian religious ideology for centuries, that has far more relevance than a patriarchal social structure.

            [–]Brazilian_Slaughter 11 points12 points  (5 children)

            The Middle East suffers a bad case of Islam

            [–]Zachar1a 6 points7 points  (4 children)

            But the Golden Age of Islam is what preserved the Greek and Roman knowledge during the Dark Ages in Europe.

            [–]Brazilian_Slaughter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            All that Greco-Roman knowledge still existed - in the Eastern Roman Empire. You know, the part that survived an extra milenium.

            The Rashidun Caliphate was a bunch of bedouins. What they did was assimilate knowledge and skilled personnel from the conquered romans and persians, also India later on. They kept but didn't innovate much.

            When the East fell to Turks, lots of greeks going to the West helped the Renaissance.

            [–]Chaddeus_Rex 7 points8 points  (3 children)

            Citizens in these countries live better than we do

            Canadian here. Are we living better than Americans? In what way? In exorbitant taxes for anyone making more than $100-150k? Declining demographics (within the next 30 years most of the population is going to be elderly with not enough middle aged adults or children to fund the healthcare system) that won't be able to fund the healthcare system for my generation. The Provincial government barely has enough money to finance the police force and 3 new metro stations take a decade to build (contrast that with a whole new line built in China in two years). The housing market is atrocious in major cities like Toronto or Vancouver. Young people cannot find jobs because of all of the pensioners refusing to leave because their retirement money is not enough to live and long lines for social housing. The liberal government is enacting retarded policies and sending us further and further into debt by bringing in thousands of Syrian refugees, housing them in hotels and causing social benefits to be cut - all while we pay for it with our taxes. Whites are openly discriminated against, with professors going so far as to penalize you if you are 'a young, white male' (directly from a stats professors mouth).

            So fuck off with your misinformation.

            [–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (2 children)

            Its very common for Canadians to think the pastures are greener south of the border. Hell I did -- that's why I moved down here.

            Bottom line is that we were materially more comfortable living in Edmonton Alberta on a family income of 55K in 1994 than we were living in Berkeley California six years later on a family income of 140K. All the really important shit costs way more down here. We've paid over 20K a year for daycare and had an additional 18K deducted from paychecks for medical insurance (which still doesn't cover everything).

            [–]Chaddeus_Rex 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            Edmonton Alberta on a family income of 55K in 1994

            Yeah well in the 90's everything was SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper in Canada. Not so any longer. Especially in the last few years prices skyrocketed in everything from food, to housing, to OHIP covering fewer procedures/drugs, to day to day items, taxes. Liberals are going to run this country into the ground, and stupid young female cunts are voting trudeau because 'he is sooooo cuttteeee'.

            [–]Soulofbuddha 5 points6 points  (6 children)

            welfare budget is running out in these western countries other than the US as well, feminism is not sustainable because it ruins fertility rate, and women are incapable of replacing men in the work force due to being biologically inferior to men.

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I never said that patriarchy was related to wealth or well-being

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (24 children)

            I'd say it has more to do with world war 2 than gender roles.

            [–]coco5440 9 points10 points  (23 children)

            England was devastated by WWII. Finland had to deal with both the Nazis and the Russians. Yet today they're just as prosperous as the rest of the western world. And don't forget that Germany rebuilt itself from rubble.

            Germany is actually a great example. After the war Germany was effectively neutered militarily and its population swung far to the left politically and socially. Yet despite what conservatives would have predicted the country prospered to an extraordinary degree.

            [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (16 children)

            A countries prosperity has a lot to do with the average intelligence of the population

            [–]Chaddeus_Rex 5 points6 points  (2 children)

            Germany rebuilt itself from rubble

            You w0t mate. That is clearly wrong. Europe did not rebuild itself after WW2, neither did Germany (and especially not East Germany). It was America under the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe under the condition that they join American sphere of influence against Soviet expansion. That is why Eastern Europe (and former warsaw pact countries are still poor af - because the Soviets did not care much for rebuilding their buffers).

            [–]coco5440 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            The Marshall Plan certainly helped in the beginning but let us not flatter ourselves it was Germans themselves who did most of the rebuilding.

            [–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Nah. It was the Marshall Plan and continuous US investment and support (and US occupation) that allowed them to rebuild. Compare the development of East Germany vs West Germany (even now), huge difference and the people is still the same.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

            the marshal plan built up those countries after world war 2.

            [–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            The Marshal Plan certainly helped a little but most of the work was done by local people. There are real limits to nation building -- just look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I'd say that places like Iraq and Afghanistan has even more exaggerated gender roles and they are doing worse than western countries. OP cant point to britain to say that gender roles is a primary cause of destruction of society, and then also point to Iraq. There's obviously other things going on.

            [–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            they collapsed presumably due to a "moral breakdown" figuratively represented in the Bible as the "Tower of Babel" (which was inspired by a real tower).

            I'm skeptical that any real lessons can be gleaned from such an anecdote. I imagine thousands of years from now someone, somewhere, will point to this incident as being "evidence" of how the American empire was in a downward spiral.

            Civilizations rise and fall, just as the planet has periods of incredible evolutionary diversification and subsequent mass extinctions, cycles of global warming and ice ages, human civilizations come and go and the reasons are numerous and complex.

            [–]mcpaulus 2 points3 points  (3 children)

            The main reason for the downfall was the difference between rich and poor on Rome. You say the romans had wealth so they didn't have to work, but that"s not true. Under 5% of the romans were perhaps that rich. Probably less. Not going to find exact numbers. The rest, the plebs, were dependent on welfare from the state. The early romans had jobs, which the slaves took over. So the rich bought the farms from the poor. Or took them. Oh and this was in Rome. The provinces were mostly farmers, some in a kind of serf arrangement. The difference between rich and poor became greater as the empire grew larger, and this was a far far greater cause of the downfall than feminism, which with modern eyes didn't exist at all. Some of the comments here are amazingly wrong. Rome didnt fall because they enjoyed "centuries of peace" and became feminine. It's true that after the empire was founded, most soldiers came from the provinces, but these was also considered romans, and certainly not immigrants. Heck, a lot of the emperors were provincials themselves...

            The downfall of Rome was a very complicated matter, but we as a modern society should be far more concerned about the wealth differences than immigration and feminism. As long as the rich get richer and poor gets poorer we will sooner or later collapse.

            [–]Rabalaz 3 points4 points  (1 child)

            Thanks for posting, bud.

            It should be said here that the men of the TRP should be hitting the books like they hit the gymn. As having an educated population is extrememly beneficial to any society they belong to.

            Fun fact, the lack of an educated society was another of the many reasons the Western Imperium of Rome disolved.

            [–]Leonidas_79 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Seems we’re headed that way

            [–]JimiJons 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            While the theory is mostly sound, the history here is fairly inaccurate, especially the last point.

            People were absolutely not living in caves. Religious zealotry has been characteristic of every civilization since the dawn of time. "Intellectual darkness" is not a real concept. Science, commerce, philosophy, and human rights were absolutely not "unknown concepts" after the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire.

            You paint the common misconception of the "Dark Ages" as this apocalyptic era in the history of human civilization when it was nothing of the sort.

            The many tribes and kingdoms that formed from splintering factions of the Roman military aristocracy were all still essentially Roman, maintaining Roman customs, Roman systems of administration, and Roman styles of culture. The major cities, particularly in Southern Europe, Greece, Italy, and Northern Africa continued to function as major independent towns or incorporated as cultural centers into other kingdoms. For the average resident, life continued as normal, even as the face on the currency changed to a non-Roman ruler.

            Literacy and other higher education declined simply because education no longer fell under a centralized system, but this had been happening for a hundred years prior to the fall.

            Instead of unified historical records from the state, we now have many different accounts of many different factions written under the direction of many different rulers.

            Certainly, Europe was a fractured mess, but was absolutely not without civilization.

            Most importantly, the numerous other great civilizations of the world at the time, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, continued to drive scientific and industrial progression past the Roman level.

            Not to mention the Eastern half of Rome continued to exist as a powerful, imperial realm for another thousand years.

            [–]Leonidas_79 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Aka The Byzantine Empire which eventually became the Ottoman Empire

            [–]fakenate1 9 points10 points  (4 children)

            You ought to demand a refund from where ever you got your classical studies degree. Because I have one and basically everything you said is completely incorrect.

            For one, The Roman Empire didn’t fall until AD 1453. And civilization didn’t crumble to the Bronze Age when the goths set up the kingdom of Italy.

            [–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 8 points9 points  (0 children)

            I hope you kept your receipts too. That's a little like saying the Baath party is still in charge of Iraq. Sure, it's a lot of the same actors, but Saddam still danced at the end of a rope.

            Oh, and the Roman Empire still exists. It's just more into fucking little kids while bitching about abortion and capitalism these days.

            [–]Chaddeus_Rex 3 points4 points  (2 children)

            Nice try. 1453 is the fall of the Byzantine Empire, formerly known ad the Eastern Roman Empire. It was hardly anything like the WESTERN Roman Empire - they did not speak Latin (hence Latin died out), they spoke Greek and their social structures were Greek not Latin. Sure they are OFFICIALLY the Roman Empire, but they were not actually Rome. Hell, Russia was called the Third Rome at one point and Russia was not similar to the Roman Empire at all.

            [–]targus_4d3d3d3 4 points5 points  (5 children)

            This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read.

            [–]Thrawy124 4 points5 points  (2 children)

            And the crusades were fought solely in the name of God.

            [–]Orsick 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            The comments are even dumber.

            [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            TL;DR in The Roman Empire : Peace caused Feminism,

            Comparing the freedoms (feminism) of women in Roman Empire with the current (feminism) ones is plain stupid. I might give you an example of "men in Roman Empire were feminized b/c they wore clothing that by our modern standards is borderline gay/trans looking" - it still only clothing we're talking about, so what's the big deal right? Context matters.

            As for actual feminism in Roman Empire - there's only ONE source - Heartiste's article (https://goo.gl/GdoDRe) in which he cites another dude's work - which itself is VERY superficial, b/c it only looks at ONE (and relatively not important) aspect of why the Empire fell and it is not describing how actually things looked like in the examples (quotes from link, not OP) :

            ~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)

            This example omits a very important thing: Roman women had the right to own land, represent themselves before the law, they were treated equally to their brothers when it comes to who is the heir after pater familias dies. Another thing is - it was not a patriarchy per se - it's not MEN who ruled over women, it was FATHERS who ruled over households. Wife's responsibility was first and foremost to her household/father NOT to her husband.

            1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work.

            It was ALWAYS like this. Roman's economy was almost entirely based on agriculture, and that means on slaves. It's not like the Roman Empire became so rich that they could stop working and became decadent. They NEVER worked in the first place.

            The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy,

            I'll skip the arts and philosophy, since the number of people who did this and their impact is inconsequential. As for democracy - yes they did have democracy ON PAPER. In practical terms ow governing it was a republic. The common people (plebeians) could vote when gathered in an "assembly" BUT the "assembly" could only be called by the Magistrate who (despite being elected) always came from aristocracy. On top of that the weight of each vote was strongly tied to who was casing it, therefore the will of the common people was basically ignored.

            and women become emancipated.

            No, they didn't. They had some freedoms and some restrictions, but generally women never had the same possibilities as men did, as it was the men that were expected to follow their father's footsteps in maintaining the household. There was no such thing as "emancipation of women" on par with what we have now.

            No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.

            Omitting the fact that de facto "no fault divorce" was a standard practice among the high standing families to facilitate political alliances easier. And omitting the fact that it was MEN who initiated this no fault divorce in the majority not women. And omitting the fact that there was no divorce rape. And omitting the fact that dowry was standard practice.

            ~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax”, to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers,

            Total bs. Not the "family unit". Equating a commoner's "family unit" with a high profile household is wrong. In the time period the author mentions it's not the "family unit" that declined - it was the rich and powerful Roman households who were the main political, economic and thus military force behind Roman Empire.

            Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies.

            An average Roman plebeian could not afford nannies. Again, he's referring to upper class, which I explained above.

            The wealth and power of women grows very fast,

            VERY few independent women ever got to the wealth point of men. In most cases their wealth and power was ALWAYS tied to the men around her, either her father or her husband.

            Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.

            It was always popular, especially when compared to modern times. It was not something that appeared suddenly out of nowhere.

            Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate.

            Of citizens, not average plebs.

            Vice and massive corruption are rampant,

            Nothing new either. The apparent "democracy" was basically an overt corruption anyway.

            There is extreme economic, political and military instability:

            Author used 8 words to describe what historians and economists wrote thousands pages on as the main reason for the RE fall. This is straight up making evidence based on conclusion.


            Quote from OP

            it results in a massive immigration to sustain demography

            Really now...

            You're describing migrations (basically a moving war front) of barbarians who were subjugated by Romans during the course of the centuries. Once RE couldn't control them anymore (weak military) they decided to act their own interests. Your example is idiotic, you might as well call Hitler invading Europe a "migration".

            [–]m4t31 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Finally a thread where I can share this: https://www.sustainability-modeling.com

            Basically a how-to attempt for saving the human race through moving to a natural economy instead of money-based economy (embrace nature to save the planet and avoid extinction). I think this subject should be discussed in TRP.

            [–]abstractplebbit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            If you haven't done so already I highly recommend reading Jack Donovan's "the way of men"

            The book draws some strong parallels with what you are saying in this post but it takes those insights to their logical conclusions to give you a better understanding. It's a solid book

            [–]slamdunktiger86 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            To be fair, defending Christendom from marauding Muslims is not zealotry. It’s called defending your home.

            The Crusades were defensive campaigns. Castles all over the coastline of the Mediterranean weren’t to fight other Europeans, it was to defend from Muslim pirates.

            [–]fight_me_fam42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            LMAO "In a few centuries". But alas it looks true. Nonetheless that doesnt mean it'll be a good thing. Hard times->Strong men. Strong men-> Peaceful times. Peaceful times -> Weak men. Weak men -> Hard times.

            load more comments (29 replies)