317,196 posts

Based on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries.

673 upvotes
by null on /r/TheRedPill
03 December 2017 11:34 AM UTC
Reddit View


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!



Want to download the post?
Similar Posts


Comments

250 upvotesOnline_Identity2 years ago

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

49 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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.

36 upvotesnrjk2 years ago

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.

14 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

we have the duty to protect.

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

2 upvotesgELSK2 years ago

duty to protect

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

-1 upvotesVelebit2 years ago

whats with traitorous nazis marrying untermensch? aint that a more pathetic, dygenic and traitorous move lol

2 upvotesHellrot692 years ago

When did the nazis consider the French untermenschen?

3 upvotesVelebit2 years ago

because they surrendered in 2 weeks xD

1 upvoteshonoraryjap2 years ago

Surely you mean "unterfrauen" and "dysgenic".

4 upvotescanadianmooserancher2 years ago

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

1 upvoteskagetsuki232 years ago

The problem for the future will be AI and robots, because robots can be even stronger than men and take care of the protection of society. So, corruption may rule forever once they appear.

1 upvotessd4c2 years ago

Even if it's drones, they have to be piloted by somebody. Men have superior spatial reasoning, and are thus, necessary.

When robots are the backbone of the armed forces, and are commonly given the authority themselves, to determine shoot/don't shoot, we've abdicated our sovereignty back to the earth. Let us pray that never happens.

1 upvotesKrmBo32 years ago

Haha thats true in Africa women know their place and men know theirs they should not get that twisted

22 upvotesJigsus2 years ago

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?

54 upvotesNSFWIssue2 years ago

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.

13 upvotesJigsus2 years ago

We should find a way to exercise that control.

10 upvotesgrotton2 years ago

Instinct grabs impulsive tendencies.

3 upvotesProfessorDemon2 years ago

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.

2 upvotesVelebit2 years ago

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

16 upvotesMCDownlow2 years ago

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.

23 upvotesOnline_Identity2 years ago

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

24 upvotesArchterus2 years ago

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

1 upvotesLambdal72 years ago

Hm, lots of female homeless in the U.S., no?

1 upvotesOnline_Identity2 years ago

Very true, just speaking in a general over-arching sense towards feminism.

1 upvotesBokehClasses2 years ago

You must be a liberal. That's fine, the red pill is like driving down a one way street. You have passed one block. You still got a few more to pass. And with every block you pass, you can't turn back.

Every single social issue can be traced back to feminism. Sure, some will still exist under patriarchy, but to a much smaller extent.

Patriarchy is the one system that has proved time and again to be successful in progressing civilizations, but yet people thought it would be a great idea to remove it. How disappointing.

And world hunger? Lol. How about we focus on our own people before catering to others. Will you put strangers over your family?

1 upvotesOnline_Identity2 years ago

You must be (insert any group i see fit)... Nope. Just looking too far forward for small minded people still thinking within their borders. We are one earth.

1 upvotesBokehClasses2 years ago

But will you let refugees live in your house? Will you keep your door unlocked? Will you feed strangers at the expense of your family?

Just looking too far forward for small minded people still thinking within their borders

Well, you just admitted to looking too far forward. How about we address the immediate issues we have now, rather than focusing "too far forward" issues.

Would you put strangers over your family? You didn't answer that.

1 upvotesgELSK2 years ago

// , That depends entirely on how you define "we".

Aboriginal cultures have lots and lots of free time.

5 upvotesgreatslyfer2 years ago

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

Not a strong argument against feminism, just saying.

3 upvotesShaman66242 years ago

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.

1 upvotescanadianmooserancher2 years ago

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.

1 upvotesThrowawaysteve1234562 years ago

Exactly. This is a really good post that's on point. History has repeated itself countless times, and it's so obvious what is next. I predict a massive collapse in the next 10-15 years, huge famine, a dark ages for a century or two, and hopefully a rebuilding. I question if idioicracy will have a strong effect if this happened.

86 upvotesmax_peenor2 years ago

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.

22 upvotesSennmeistr2 years ago

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.

1 upvotesBokehClasses2 years ago

Very interesting to read. It begs the question of what impact the internet will have once this society collapses and the new civilization forms. It should serve as the ultimate knowledge preserver tool, which should be beneficial in preventing the setback of human technological progress.

1 upvotesGroundhogLiberator2 years ago

Can you recommend any quality books or documentaries about the end of the Roman Empire?

Do you have a background in history or is it just an interest?

1 upvotesSennmeistr2 years ago

Do you have a background in history or is it just an interest?

I like reading all kinds of articles, books or even Wikipedia articles, just anything I can get. And I take notes, lots of notes. Most of it is just interest in the history of antiquity and the middle ages, the only background is secondary education.

Can you recommend any quality books or documentaries about the end of the Roman Empire?

Most of the books I read or documentaries I watch are not in English. Some dozen books maybe, not specifically about the decline of Rome, but general historical overviews, where the end of the Roman Empire is shortly discussed.

1 upvotesgELSK2 years ago

Muslim conquerors

Yay, Muslims doing something productive for civilization. Some of them should bring this back.

-2 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

Technology thrived elsewhere - mainly in the East, under the rule of the Persians, Arabs and Mongolian conquerors. Due to them, we had the Renaissance, the Church in Europe did its best to suppress all knowledge and burned many Classical works or intentionally kept them hidden from the masses.

1 upvotesDerek13822 years ago

the Church in Europe did its best to suppress all knowledge and burned many Classical works or intentionally kept them hidden from the masses.

The Church in Europe safeguarded damn near every piece of classical literature and philosophy we have, painstakingly copying them over the centuries as they believed only the ancients possessed wisdoms. The main academic genre of the middle ages was the commentary (i.e. commenting on some ancient authoritative text). Aristoteles was held to be the master of all knowledge and wisdom. Church schools were the model for and directly spawn universities, which began as places to study religious law. I'd like a few examples of which Classical works the Church is supposed to have burned.

As for keeping stuff "hidden from the masses", the masses were illiterate peasants with neither the time nor the inclination to learn the high concepts that the wealthy could afford to study. Only with the advent of industrialization was productivity raised enough that mass education became feasible.

-1 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

The Church in Europe safeguarded damn near every piece of classical literature and philosophy we have, painstakingly copying them over the centuries as they believed only the ancients possessed wisdom. The main academic genre of the middle ages was the commentary (i.e. commenting on some ancient authoritative text). Aristoteles was held to be the master of all knowledge and wisdom. Church schools were the model for and directly spawn universities, which began as places to study religious law. I'd like a few examples of which Classical works the Church is supposed to have burned.

Except it was the Christians who burned the Great libraries of Byzantium and used the scrolls held wherein as fire kindling. Moreover, it was the copying of Greek and Roman texts by Arabic scholars in Cordoba, Alexandria and later in Persia by Jewish and Christian scholars that preserved Classical knowledge, not the Church. There was systemic suppression of information and destruction of scrolls. Individual European rulers put more or less influence on preserving Classical knowledge in secret from the Church.

All the monks did was copy the bible thousands of times for no reason.

And if the Church viewed the Classicists with any reverence, the revelations of Copernicus or Galileo would not have been so Earth shattering for them - for it was known by the Greeks that the Earth was round and the managed to calculate its circumference to the 4th decimal point. Knowledge that was lost and not promoted by the Church. If the church cared about disseminating knowledge it would have educated the illiterate masses of peasants, but it did all it could to keep them down well into the 20th century.

And people started to get literate with the advent of the Printing Press by Gutenberg, when it became much more difficult to suppress the spread of information. The Printing Press and the rediscovery of Greek/Roman manuscripts in Arabic prompted the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution.

1 upvotesDerek13822 years ago

And if the Church viewed the Classicists with any reverence, the revelations of Copernicus or Galileo would not have been so Earth shattering for them - for it was known by the Greeks that the Earth was round and the managed to calculate its circumference to the 4th decimal point.

The biggest giveaway of the profoundity of your ignorance is your belief that Galileo and Copernicus introduced the idea of a round Earth (which was, on the contrary, well established at the time), instead of different models of the solar system (heliocentrism vs geocentrism). You literally know less about the topic than someone who has read the related Simple English wikipedia page. Fuck off and get an education.

3 upvotesmax_peenor2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Library_of_Constantinople

" The library continued in substantial form until the city of Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453 when the library's considerable surviving contents were destroyed or lost.[2] "

Last time I checked, the Ottoman Empire was not Christian.

This is complete bullshit. And there was no flat Earth conspiracy within the Catholic Church. You do know when the reformation occurred, yes?

3 upvotesAnjaJutta2 years ago

The Eastern Roman Empire existed till 1453 and its destruction fueled the Renaissance in Western Europe. The only thing Mongols and Turks brought to Western Europe is yoghurt.

0 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

Go read about the protected status engineers, scholars and scientists had under the Mongols.

3 upvotesAnjaJutta2 years ago

Were the engineers, scholars and scientists Mongols themselves? No

1 upvotesTheStumblingWolf2 years ago

Why is this downvoted? Islam in the 1500s valued science highly. Under one ruler's reign people were paid gold if they could deliver a book of science that he didn't have. The doctors of Europe were very eager to learn from middle eastern doctors. There's a reason why they're called Arabic numbers (even though, in Arabic, I believe they're called Indian numbers).

9 upvotesBluepillProfessor2 years ago

Islam in the 1500s valued science

Persians in the 1500's valued science.

Islamic scholarship has nothing to do with scientific scholarship and it was Persians with an ancient, rich culture NOT Muslim barbarians from the desert who preserved Western advances during the brief time of harsh scientific oppression by the Christian Church.

To be fair, Christians stopped throwing gays off of buildings a long time ago.

-4 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

Exactly.

In case anyone is curious to expand their horizons and shed the Bluepill that society has taught you about history, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Natural_sciences

If we are to truly swallow the redpill, not only with women, but outside of it as well, we need to identify other bluepill memes and eliminate them. One of these memes is Christanity. Christanity is a pox on the Western man and needs to die.

In case anyone is wondering, I am not for Islam. I am for truth. If I could identify with some religious group, I would identify as a Greco-Roman Pagan at worst or a Scandinavian Pagan at best.

5 upvoteschaseemall2 years ago

The closest thing you have to Hellenic thought is Christianity. Read some theology. You will clearly see strains of post-aristotelian philosophy (stoicism) as well as of other ideas. Not to mention that most of our traditions are Christianized Germanic and Roman traditions. Christianity is a living tradition. Those traditions are dead. Why? Because they were conquered by Christianity.

4 upvotesDPestWork2 years ago

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.

8 upvotesThrawy1242 years ago

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.

8 upvotesVelebit2 years ago

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

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

The dark ages weren't that bad at all unless you care about things like the complete depopulation of urban areas, the collapse of trade, collapse of any sort of complex industry or manufacturing, the return to subsistence farming of virtually the entire population, the collapse of complex engineering and road maintenance, almost no written records, and a major regression in the beauty and quality of artwork. The idea that the Dark Ages weren't that dark is one pushed by modern leftist historians.

It is true though that most of the barbarians that overran Rome were quasi-Roman themselves. Many had been serving as federated military allies for decades or centuries and wanted a place within the empire, not to destroy it.

1 upvotesmax_peenor2 years ago

the return to subsistence farming of virtually the entire population

Let me pick on this one because it speaks to all of them: if you were a Roman citizen, then things definitely sucked. However, given that a huge portion of the population were either farmer slaves, urban slaves or peasants living on the edge, there wasn't a whole lot of change for them when trade fell and they were required to dig for their own food. These people weren't buying trade items in the first place.

You have to fast-forward to the plague before you really start salting the Earth in some parts of Europe.

3 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

The entire Empire was Roman citizens when the Empire fell, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. But the quality of life definitely fell even for your poor urban or rural person living harvest to harvest. The urban poor all left their cities, so obviously life sucked for them. If they had some sort of profession now they are unemployed and if they were on the grain dole that is obviously over. They probably left because the food stopped coming, so they probably either starved or if they were lucky became tenant farmers somewhere.

Even for a poor rural farmer, you no longer have access to any manufactured goods coming from the cities. Even very basic things like pottery becomes rare and much simpler. Poor people still buy bowls and plates. Now if you break one it probably costs 10 times more for a shittier product, if it even exists at all.

You don't have access to any food that isn't grown in your immediate vicinity because there's no trade anymore, so if you are a peasant living in England, wine used to be an expensive luxury that you maybe or maybe could not afford (maybe it was a special occasion a couple times a year), and now it simply no longer exists in your universe. Your variety of food would go down. You aren't getting any fruits from Southern France or fish from the Mediterranean anymore. It's going to be bread, local fruits and vegetables, and whatever you can hunt, and if there is a bad harvest there's no Roman governor to request aid from the emperor from a different part of the empire.

If there used to be a bridge across a major river near your home or an aqueduct bringing in water, those have probably fallen down or are no longer serviceable. If you used to be a soldier then one day the pay just stops coming and you have to figure out what to do now. The security situation is obviously worse and now you probably occasionally get pressed into military service. I think life got much worse.

2 upvotesmax_peenor2 years ago

The entire Empire was Roman citizens

Slaves were not citizens, even if they were given magical unicorn writs to say otherwise. There were classes, up until there weren't.

Now if you break one it probably costs 10 times more for a shittier product

You greatly overestimate the movement of basic stuff. The sea of slaves and peasants weren't grading their wooden bowls and spoons.

You don't have access to any food

Food was the last thing that moved on the roads back then. Spices, sure, and some expensive specialty items. All food was local. Rome didn't have suburbs. It had farms that fed the city. Animals were marched there before slaughtered and the roads (and aqueducts) remained in use long after the empire fell.

Wine was favored because it could take long trips, but you have to understand that there were no commercial trucks back then. Physically moving stuff was tedious. Moving 100 gallons of wine from Spain to Rome was a huge deal.

The security situation is obviously worse

One thing a lot of people don't understand is how different security was back then. There were no police. Security was a neighborhood responsibility. The Pretorian guard had a very small and focused mission and didn't give a single fuck about the typical citizen.

1 upvotes2comment2 years ago

My personal theory is this : if a country's fertility rate per woman goes bellow 2 for a considerable amount of time, it will end in an economical and political crisis.

Only in systems that have debt and use fiat money (it's all loaned into existence, thus every dollar accruing interest somewhere). Without such conditions, in the past, contractions in population occured without major upheaval because it was natural. The modern system, of course, needs exponential growth.

The birthrate needs to be above 2 because of mortality. It used to be 4 for replacement rate, because of childless couple and mortality. Childless couples still exist. Mortality is much lower though.

Immigration exists in the west not to sustain demographic per se, but to give the corporations ever new consumers. Notice in how much of western europe, the immigrants don't have to work but are given EVERYTHING. Housing, appliances, food, etc. Purely a welfare state to corporations right now, propped up by idiot liberals who don't know what it's about. And completely unsustainable.

I suggest looking up Oswald Spengler and Decline of the West. He's from the 1920s and was very heavy into the cyclical theory of history.

1 upvotesmonkeysword882 years ago

Also consider reading The Fate of Empires.

1 upvotesPerfect-Practice2 years ago

Fascinating.

Why can't corporations charge consumers a sustainable amount instead of forcing them into maximum debt?

Would that mean more purchasing power for consumers and more money for the corporations in the long term?

Is this a case of a dollar today is worth two tomorrow? It doesn't look like it's sustainable.

4 upvotesLeonidas_792 years ago

Henry Ford laid the blueprint out for the most profitable business: You have to invest in people so that they will invest in you.

I think we’re headed for another Great Depression or some kind of western revolution.

17 upvotesgrimlocksgauntlet2 years ago

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.

5 upvotesLeonidas_792 years ago

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.

1 upvotesActanonverba112 years ago

I honestly have my passport just in-case I need to do a fast get-out. First stop is Latin America. It still shocks me that Brazil doesn't have child support laws.

0 upvotesreddttt2 years ago

Hahahahahha better attitudes? They hide it better! Personal experience

128 upvotesAwesomeCool9092 years ago

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.

32 upvotesclme2 years ago

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?

51 upvotesNSFWIssue2 years ago

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.

27 upvotesAPSTNDPhy2 years ago

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.'

2 upvotesIncel98762 years ago

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.

20 upvotesOrigami842 years ago

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

3 upvotesActanonverba112 years ago

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.

2 upvotesGroundhogLiberator2 years ago

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.

1 upvotesEydtkuhnen2 years ago

I'd say that there is no way to turn back, if it's all the case. I don't even think it's the fault of the existance of feminism. Those kind ideologies and philosophies come to life due to natural circumstances, like this:

  1. Men win wars, country becomes more and more prosperous.
  2. Decades, if not centuries of peace.
  3. People start to think: "Why do we still need patriarchal structures? This system can also be controlled by women." And in that sense, they are right. There are no enemies to fight, so there is no need in forming the strongest males and getting them a comfortable life for it.
  4. Feminism happens: Women grow stronger, men grow weaker. Anecdote: My father claimed, that he always wanted a dominant woman, because being a leader was too exhausting to him.
  5. Moral standards shift in general: War, a terrible, but in some instances necessary event in civilization gets demonized. Nobody wants to become a fighter.
  6. Other patriarchal civilization comes and overtake the once peaceful women-lead civilization. Women can't defend their people, flee, die or even turn to the enemy. Men get totally whiped out. The same old patriarchal structure from centuries is back again, only created by some other folks.
  7. Return back to Nr. 1

The quote of Jesus, that the first will always be the last one day, gets a different meaning here.

But it's an overgeneralization, I don't claim it's totally true.

27 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

1 upvotesEydtkuhnen2 years ago

Men had this once. Marriage as an institution was once more balanced. 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.

But what do I say, their is a in my opinion totally genius video from Karen Straughan about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw

18 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

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.

5 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

19 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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.

7 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

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.

3 upvotesVelebit2 years ago

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.

4 upvotesPsyMonk-2 years ago

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.

5 upvotesVelebit2 years ago

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

1 upvotesEydtkuhnen2 years ago

Yes you are absolutely right with this. I didn't want to appoint feminist structure as the only bad thing and patriarchal structures as the messianic answer to it.

As you have mentioned, these cultures exaggerated their patriarchal culture and suffered therefore from other stuff than a matriarchal does.

And don't forget that this gender-stuff isn't the only significant factor in a culture, there is also stuff like economics, ecologics (natural disasters) and other random stuff that just happens.

3 upvotesVelebit2 years ago

It seems that monogamy and morality are a better indicator than patriarchy. When rules are known and everyone follows them.

3 upvotesGroundhogLiberator2 years ago

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

Weak men create hard times.

2 upvoteshawkeaglejesus2 years ago

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

3 upvotestkoubek2 years ago

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.

1 upvotesPlanner_Hammish2 years ago

Blue pill men are indoctrinated for sure; some are happy to stay that way. Whereas others, like myself, get hurt pretty bad even though we were doing everything we were supposed to do. And then we go looking for answers. Eventually we find likeminded men to discuss these concepts and failures and rebuild our worldview.

4 upvotesbiglaughingcock2 years ago

porn, pocket pussies, medical marijuana will solve that right

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

6 upvotessenordustball2 years ago

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

1 upvotesVelebit2 years ago

Unwin also wrote that equality between women and men is necessary for absolute monogamy.

This is my conclusion also. And this is why literal (not merely legal) equality is necessary. With genetic research this is easier.

1 upvotesdeadassfinna2 years ago

Since women tend to get treated easier or more fairly than men do yoy reckon sons raised by single mums take on that lazyness and entitlement of the mother ie he also believes he should be treated easier and fairer, thus lowering aggresion, assertiveness etc

0 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

I would wager that he simply would not have the competitive drive nurtured as he would if he had a father, which is why his aggression and assertiveness would be lower as he is older. At the end of the day, these are skills learned as we grow up.

1 upvotesAwesomeCool9092 years ago

Men are lazy for they don't have a reason to care. What reason is there to fight to move up now?

Traditionally, men fought to impress women or make it easier for there kids (who used the power to impress mates themselves).

Men worked for society only for two things, because they would die otherwise (as a slave or resource starved) or to impress the girl.

36 upvotesBrazilian_Slaughter2 years ago

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.

5 upvotesRabalaz2 years ago

Take my upvote for this knowledge dump.

3 upvotesLeonidas_792 years ago

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

1 upvotesBrazilian_Slaughter2 years ago

Well Vikings were 9th-11th century so it was more like the Dim Ages then.

Its a pity here in the West we don't talk more about the Berber pirates. Imagine if the Vikings kept raiding Europe from the 600s up to the 19th century. Vikings ain't got shit on them.

1 upvotesreddttt2 years ago

If you're interested, read about cossacks.

8 upvotesalucardarian2 years ago

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.

1 upvotesKetogainsmongoose2 years ago

I believe Stephen explains the parallels well.

In essence, the citizens of Rome grew tried of being exploited and went their own way.

The collapse of society will be the liberation of the average male.

1 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

Molyneux stopped proper fact checking 2 years ago, that's when I stopped listening to him. He's an alt-right youtuber that panders to his viewers b/c he only makes arguments for his thesis. It's how he grows his viewership b/c it's his job.

I strongly caution you from taking Moluneux as credible source. At best he can be called "good at showing one side of the story".

Just read some of this, he has been proven to be outright lying on many occasions, his treatment of callers is in direct contradiction to his own principles.

https://goo.gl/srxnWA

7 upvotesSaintHolland2 years ago

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.

62 upvotesGEN_GOTHMOG2 years ago

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.

5 upvotesmetallicdrama2 years ago

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.

1 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

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

1 upvotesmetallicdrama2 years ago

Well really the problem is women themselves. Can't change nature overnight. Arguably there is much more check on that in a patriarchal system than with feminism. Nothing is perfect.

1 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

Arguably there is much more check on that in a patriarchal system than with feminism.

Yes, there is. The problem with patriarchy (established by state) is simple: it makes men BP and beta by providing what they usually had to compete for. The patriarchy that was established back in the ancient history was established based on merit, accomplishments of men in general. We carved our "patriarchal world" out of the grasp of nature (and other men), literally. The patriarchy was a consequence of our skill as men.

What "tradcon/patriarchy" supporters on TRP want is state enforced patriarchy/monogamy/marriage with no divorce b/c they don't want to earn their position. As simple as that. It's basically a form of sexual welfare.

This will never work, as evident by the current situation. You can't have patriarchy working as intended when 99% of men simply can't lead themselves, not to mention lead others, which is not only a skill but also a responsibility.

1 upvotesmetallicdrama2 years ago

Yeah I wasn't arguing for that. The main problem in the first place is the state. I definitely don't want sexual Socialism. Through most of history it was culture and religion that shaped the law and maintained social pressures. Just the law without the actual cultural and biological drives is a mess. Most men are trainable. Men have to be developed. It's fixable. Leaders learn those skills. Most are naturally apt for the role but still have to learn it. Laws won't fix that. In a zero law situation men naturally rule.

31 upvotescoco54402 years ago

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.

10 upvoteschaseemall2 years ago

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.

1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

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

2 upvoteschaseemall2 years ago

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?

1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

Blue collar jobs have been disappearing since the early 70s. The recent recession was just the latest blow. Making poor women's lives so miserable that they have to shack up with marginally employed guys seems mean spirited to me. Reducing inequality seems a better path. I'd start by encouraging rather than busting labor unions.

7 upvotesJigsus2 years ago

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?

15 upvotescoco54402 years ago

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).

15 upvotesJigsus2 years ago

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.

-3 upvotescoco54402 years ago

I'm not sure where people find these immigrant examples. Its been my experience that immigrants are the hardest working most honest group of people. In Edmonton my circle of friends and coworkers included many immigrants from all over the world. I'd have a hard time findly anything bad to say about any of them (with the possible exception of a Serbian foreman I had to work with once -- he was a bit of a bully -- not to me but to some of the guys he knew wouldn't push back). Here in California Mexican and Central American immigrants labor long hours for low pay under unbelievably harsh conditions (i.e. 14 hours in 110+ degree heat). My son's chemical engineering and pharmacy school class mates included hard working immigrants from all over the world. I'm thinking these abuse stories are about as accurate as Ronald Reagan's African American welfare queen stories.

7 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

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.

0 upvotescoco54402 years ago

Actually according to Statistics Canada the Canadian divorce rate is 38%. Also, why would anyone care what color the children are?

10 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

-5 upvotescoco54402 years ago

You do know that Canada is more ethnically diverse than the United States and also more egalitarian.

3 upvotesSammyD1st2 years ago

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

1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

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

5 upvotesDeep_freeze2022 years ago

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.

5 upvoteschaseemall2 years ago

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?

2 upvotesDeep_freeze2022 years ago

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.

0 upvotescoco54402 years ago

Its a verifiable fact that marriages between educated middle and upper middle class people are the most stable (the rich as they say are different). In middle class marriages the family unit depends upon the earning capacity of both partners. This is particularly true if the family lives in an area where the cost of living is very high. Both parties take a hit if these relationships breakup. Thus hypergamy is controlled economically. For more detail see the book "Marriage Markets: How Inequality is Remaking the American Family " by Cahn Naomi and June Carbone.

Marriage has always been about economics.

7 upvotesDeep_freeze2022 years ago

The marriage may be more stable but only because the wealthier the mate the less likely it is that a woman will be able to find a better deal per hypergamy. That has nothing to do with whether the woman is faithful or if the relationship is healthy, there are millions of miserable married cucks in sexless marriages whose wives would divorce rape them faster than you can blink if the opportunity for a wealthier more attractive partner presented itself.

Marriages were more stable in the past not due to economics but because social structures almost ensured that women couldn't act on their hypergamous nature. This is also why women were far more selective in partners before the liberalization of society, they had to find the best mate they could because once married they were stuck and any promiscuity or bad behavior would make it near impossible for them to find a quality mate.

0 upvotescoco54402 years ago

I don't doubt that for a minute. However, to me it doesn't seem to matter if hypergamy is controlled by economics or controlled by social sanction. A woman who stays in a marriage because she would be shunned if she left is not likely to be any more enthusiastic in the bedroom.

2 upvotesShaman66242 years ago

Economics? Those marriages are the most stable because those layers of civilization are the last stronghold of traditional values. It's social ostracism that still holds total polygamy in check there.

1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

Regardless of the reason 78% of marriages where the woman has at least a four year degree last (as opposed to only 40% for high school or less, and 49% for some college). The take away here is that, if you're inclined to get married, you should marry an educated woman.

1 upvotesjim234234red2 years ago

I've seen this claim being made all over the place, but when I looked into it things are a littlest less clear:

What they are showing is that wealthy, more educated marriages areore stable. They're omitting a few key points:

  1. Educated people are getting married at later ages - the last 20 years of data isn't including many women who only got at 30 instead of 20.

  2. They consider stable as marriages that last up to about 10 years.

So they're purposefully ignoring the fact that many women are buying into the whole eat, pray, love shit once the kids are in school and after they've been nstay-at-home mom's for a decade. This is the absolute worst time for a guy to get divorced as he now is basically on the hook for lifetime alimony and child support since the wife stopped working for years.

1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

Educated women generally don't stay home for more than a few months after childbirth. When she's been working making decent money there is no alimony after split. 50/50 custody splits are common when these marriages fail so little or no child support.

3 upvotesrigbed2 years ago

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

5 upvotescoco54402 years ago

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.

2 upvotesblindface2 years ago

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.

2 upvotesGEN_GOTHMOG2 years ago

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

2 upvotesblindface2 years ago

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

1 upvotesGuthix4Days2 years ago

This is sad but true.

The standards are being raised constantly. Extreme effort will soon be required to land a prospect-friendly partner while 80% of the others will get nothing.

1 upvotesKingkongsong2 years ago

Dont blame liberalism. Blame feminism

5 upvoteskosta1232 years ago

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

4 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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 ?

8 upvotesNicolay772 years ago

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.

4 upvotesasapkokeman2 years ago

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.

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

did you even read the post ?

1 upvotesDerek13822 years ago

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.

I mean:

Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work.

Bullshit.

they know and appreciate democracy

The 1st century BC is the death of Roman democracy, which had been on the decline for a while. Appreciate it my ass.

human rights, animal rights

The Romans famously only recognized citizens rights. 'Animal rights' are a total invention, animals were property and could be done with as one pleased.

Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies.

The image of the average Roman woman, ie a peasant farmer, having the money to get a nanny is hysterical.

~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate.

That might have had more to do with several plagues, civil wars and famines, the disruption of commerce and the loss of stability than feminism.

humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave)

This is fucking retarded.

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

Ah, right: there were no medieval philosophers, artists, poets, or scientists. Scholasticism never existed. The Renaissance was in the 17th century, or maybe even later.

tomek77's grasp of chronology is terrible, let alone history. He understands basically nothing about the time period he's covering, even the stereotypes he believes in are wrong. If you read his comment and thought anything but "this sounds like bullshit", you need to re-take Ancient History 101 posthaste.

7 upvoteschaseemall2 years ago

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.

6 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

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

1 upvoteschaseemall2 years ago

Well, take it as a starting point for further inquiry, then.

1 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

I did enquire.

I read about why Roman Empire declined, why it fell, I read about what was the status of women in RE and how it changed, I read about their social structure, how was their economy organized, why did it work and why it stopped, I read about why and how did they managed to hold the barbarians in check and why they couldn't later, I read about the influence of Christianity, I read about how was their political system organized and how it worked in practice.

What did you read? 500 word theory by an uniformed dude that yanked your emotions in the way you like to be yanked?

You have 2 choices regarding TRP: dig for your own knowledge, factcheck and test OR just accept anything that "sounds about right b/c it denouces what I dont like". It basically boils down to either "working to be RP yourself" or "replacing BP fantasy with a RP one".

1 upvoteschaseemall2 years ago

I get this is supposed to be the hurtbox, but hold your horses.

I was seeing a lot of people getting mad about specific details while failing to acknowledge the overarching point of OP, which is that feminism causes societal decline. The thing which is important is not specific chronology, or the hyperbolic descriptions of the dark ages. The thing which is important is whether feminism caused the whole damn thing to fall apart, and whether it's going to cause OUR society to fall apart. That's what the other commenter was failing to deal with.

Focusing on the inconsistency in details while ignoring the thrust of the argument is a shitlib deflection tactic; I'm not saying the other guy was a shitlib. I'm not saying you're a shitlib. But there are definitely some shitlibs in these comments. The basic question at hand was not addressed in the comment I was replying to and I was trying to refocus the discussion.

You've inquired. Cool. But you still failed to address the basic question at hand here. It's not whether OP got the details right, it's whether the increasing liberalization of social mores with regards to the role of women is a sign of degeneration, and whether it's going to kill us all.

You have 2 choices regarding TRP: dig for your own knowledge, factcheck and test OR just accept anything that "sounds about right b/c it denouces what I dont like". It basically boils down to either "working to be RP yourself" or "replacing BP fantasy with a RP one".

Fuck off. I wasn't trying to make the point that it was OK to be intellectually unrigorous. I was trying to make the point that the concern OP brought up was a valid one. If you want to argue for checking things yourself, fine, but drop the superior tough guy bit. You don't know what I have or haven't done, how I have or haven't progressed, or anything else. All you saw was some throwaway reply that I tossed out as an acknowledgement of a criticism you made, and you decided you needed to play drill sergeant.

1 upvotesMonsieurAlu2 years ago

Do you have any links on that stuff still in your Browser history? I find this post very fishy and am interested in What you read

2 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

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.

1 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

Actually, feminism did exist under the auspices of the Roman Empire. It did not affect peasant women - just like nowadays it does not affect working class/poor women. Feminism was used by aristocratic ladies and the daughters of rich merchants to wield immense power. This is very similar to the modern situation where feminism is used primarily by upper middle class/rich women to advance their station and was invented due to their boredom. Feminism was A HUGE factor, next to Christianity which led to the fall of Rome.

Moreover, nobody said if America falls, humanity will enter a new Dark Age. That will not happen due to the internet, widespread dissemination of knowledge and the relative level advancement of most places in the world. However, nobody can say America can't collapse in a similar manner to the Soviet Union.

In 1985, the US government predicted that the Soviet Union would pass the US economically by 1997. However, the Soviet Union collapsed by 1991. It went from one of the most technologically, economically and militarily developed countries in the world to a reduced QOL and skyrocketing corruption and crime overnight (literally). It's economy was entirely dismantled by 1990. It's progenitors - Russia and the post-Soviet States- did not enter a bronze age or a dark age, but had to spend a decade wrestling with high crime, civil war and a total collapse of economy and infrastructure. This is quite possible if America collapses. Do not forget, nobody predicted the Soviet collapse, not even the Soviet government - they had already drawn up plans for a new five year plan that was supposed to start in 1990 and entirely automate the Central Planning apparatus with computer systems.

1 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

Feminism was used by aristocratic ladies and the daughters of rich merchants to wield immense power.

Statistically, how many of the women did wield that kind of power compared to men? 1%? 5? 30%? Give a number and a source.

Feminism was A HUGE factor

Great, let's go into details. What did the feminism do exactly? Give meaningful examples, supported by sources.

It went from one of the most technologically, economically and militarily developed countries in the world

You're talking major fantasy here. The only technology that was advanced and comparable in Soviet Union was military one. Economically it was always struggling, even with basic stuff like grain, electricity, car batteries etc.

nobody predicted the Soviet collapse, not even the Soviet government

Another fantasy. Soviet upper echelons knew that it's going down, their only problem was how to keep power while reforming the country, which is what Gorbatchev attempted. Similar situation is now in North Korea.

This is quite possible if America collapses.

And if it doesn't?

1 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

Statistically, how many of the women did wield that kind of power compared to men? 1%? 5? 30%? Give a number and a source.

There is no statistics on the matter, but according to Edward Gibbons in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, women began to control Rome through influence over weak husbands in the Senate and later by controlling the emperor himself. Case and point, the absolute control Empress Theodora had over Justinian and the shrewish, lustful and vulgar behavior she exhibited in court, taking many lovers and spending vast sums of money on her own vanity. In fact, she was a 'dancer' (ie prostitute) and became Justinian's oneitis because he put pussy on a pedestal. She is only the best known example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodora_(6th_century)

Great, let's go into details. What did the feminism do exactly? Give meaningful examples, supported by sources.

Feminism caused corruption within the Senate and later amongst the emperor himself, it caused the fall of the Republic and the irreversible collapse of the WRE. Sometimes the women caused rebellions.

I will use four examples to illustrate a broader point.

If we look at the Early Empire we see that Boudica raised a rebellion against the Empire in England and this caused problems for the Romans for many years, but ultimately the might of Rome prevailed.

Next, part of the blame for the collapse of the Late Republic can be attributed to Cleopatra's influence over both Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Cleopatra used her female wiles to get Julius Ceasar to fall in love with her and claimed her kid was Caesars (though his true parentage remains a mystery), Caesareon who she used claim the 'throne' of Rome. She used Mark Antony to fight Octavian in a bid to rule Rome and establish the Empire.

Nero's mother, Agrippina the Younger had a huge influence over her beta son, Emperor Nero who is said to have been very petty, fearful for his power and used public funds to build himself a palace at her behest. There is also legends that she wanted him assassinated but failed when he assassinated her instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippina_the_Younger

And Empress Theodora (link above) who pushed Justinian and Belisarius to try to retake the WRE. Justinian being the doting husband that he was agreed with his wife and sent Belisarius to reconquer lost lands. He of course did, but it over-stretched the reach of the ERE making him irreversibly lose the WRE to the Goths, instead of doing a slow conquest (as Belisarius) suggested and solidifying Roman rule.

You're talking major fantasy here. The only technology that was advanced and comparable in Soviet Union was military one. Economically it was always struggling, even with basic stuff like grain, electricity, car batteries etc.

Are you serious? The ignorance is palpable. The only time that the Soviet Union had problems with grain is when Stalin started his collectivization program in the 1930's. But lets not forget that there was the Midwestern Dustbowl in America at that time as well and drought. These factors together caused famine throughout the Soviet Union. After World War 2, there were no more problems with food in the Soviet Union.

Every city had electricity. Hell the Soviets pioneered and built the first atomic reactors, sent the first men into space, built the first television set. Moreover, before world war 2 they relied on coal to provide electricity and were one of the first countries in the world to provide widespread electricity. I suggest you go read a list of inventions of the Soviets. You'd be surprised.

http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/electrification-campaign/communism-is-soviet-power-electrification-of-the-whole-country/

Another fantasy. Soviet upper echelons knew that it's going down, their only problem was how to keep power while reforming the country, which is what Gorbatchev attempted. Similar situation is now in North Korea.

Gorbachev was an American shill. He was going to continue development according to the five year model until he visited his consul in Ottawa who behind closed door convinced him to abandon the Soviet project. I don't have time to anwer any more, if you have questions ask.

1 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

Rome:

You have singular examples, 2 out of 3 of them have nothing to do with "feminism in Roman Empire". I was talking about meaningful in numbers and confirmed data about feminism in Roman Empire among the entire ruling class.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_Union

The Soviet Union earned hard currency by exporting fuels and other primary products to the industrialized West and then used this currency to buy sophisticated manufactures and agricultural products, primarily grain.

Much of the income earned from fuel exports to Western Europe was used to pay off debts with the United States, Canada, and Australia, from which the Soviet Union had imported large quantities of grain.[1]

With the exception of grain, phosphates used in fertilizer production, and high-technology equipment, Soviet dependence on Western imports historically has been minimal.

to the United States and received agricultural goods—mostly grain—and industrial equipment in return. The value of exports to the Soviet Union in 1987 amounted to US$1.5 billion, three-quarters of which consisted of agricultural products and one-quarter industrial equipment.

In 1985 and 1986, trade was the lowest since 1973. The Soviet Union had turned to Canada and Western Europe for one-third of its grain supplies,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

https://books.google.pl/books?id=VVFuYN8TS5AC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=soviet+brownouts&source=bl&ots=x5ZtuZaikg&sig=0YyRMgREk8CQGTX9rASbx8PsoFI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY0o-G4PDXAhULMJoKHeEuAMkQ6AEINjAD#v=onepage&q=soviet%20brownouts&f=false

I'm going to skim over the difference in the electronics between Soviets and US b/c it's pretty much obvious to anyone.

Gorbachev was an American shill.

Why did the non-shills didn't got rid of him then? Entire KGB was and rest of high ranking Party members were powerless?

1 upvotesLambdaMale2 years ago

Thank you. Seldom read such dreadfully wrong drivel about history and it is a disgrace how unreflected people here lap it up.

9 upvotesVelebit2 years ago

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

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

2 upvotesmcpaulus2 years ago

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

5 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

1 upvotesmcpaulus2 years ago

Oh I have read your post. It makes me sad that it could get that many upvotes, seeing as it has soo muvh bullshit in it.

First if all you are confusing feminism with softness. And Rome didn't even fall because of softness.

Second of all, birthrates dropping are rarely in history affected by "feminism".

95% of the romans was the unwashed masses, the uneducated plebs and provincial farmers. These people were hardly feminine nor did the women get any substanial rights as the republic and empire grew...the main problem was that the rich and the elite fucked them over and over again

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

so there was a fertility rate bellow 2
and now you're telling me that if plebs weren't fucking it's because they were poor ? lol from my point of view, in every society it's the poor who fuck the most

22 upvoteschazthundergut2 years ago

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

11 upvotesRabalaz2 years ago

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.

5 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

19 upvotesgardenofbacchus2 years ago

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.

1 upvotesScott_Jordan2 years ago

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.

OK, I get your point. But whose weapon is this? Who has designed and created it?

Any pointers?

1 upvoteschaseemall2 years ago

The kosher answer is Marxists. The less kosher answer is obvious.

1 upvotesScott_Jordan2 years ago

It is my understanding that the KGB set in motion this long range process of imploding American society from the inside. Perhaps this is what you allude to?

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

2 upvotesPsyMonk-2 years ago

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

1 upvotesBluqin2 years ago

The saddest thing is that even the "woke" parts of the internet get caught up in attacking the actors.

I gave up hope when the Coup of Trump's presidency happened in a matter of months and nobody realized anything changed.

God help the masses.

1 upvoteschaseemall2 years ago

What specifically are you referring to?

1 upvotestallwheel2 years ago

Nah. It obviously happened organically... as it did in many other societies throughout history. GTFO with this conspiracy bullshit.

11 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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.

14 upvotestailingloop2 years ago

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

4 upvotesRabalaz2 years ago

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

3 upvotesYour_Coke_Dealer2 years ago

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

-2 upvotescoco54402 years ago

You may not have noticed but there are 7.6 billion of us. A lower reproduction rate is a good thing.

3 upvotesYour_Coke_Dealer2 years ago

Not if it's in your country when other populations keep growing. There's no feminism in the Middle East, Africa, or most of Asia. This is why you have mass migration into western countries: a Middle Eastern family will have 5-8 kids, while a typical family in, say, New York, will have maybe two kids or worse yet just have pets

-1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

Migration is good. Someone's got to do the hard and/or shit jobs -- lazy white Americans sure as hell don't want to do them.

2 upvotesLeonidas_792 years ago

Did you not read the post above, you bellend?

3 upvotesRosace_892 years ago

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

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

couldn't find it on amazon but here is a link for full text https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-2F_iHS6BLtGJb2ad/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb_djvu.txt

3 upvotesBokehClasses2 years ago

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 :)

3 upvotesLambdal72 years ago

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.

0 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

no one on this thread said that we should enslave women
I personally believe that feminist societies fail because women are hardcoded to marry up while men are not. I don't personally think that rolling back to patriarchy would be a great thing, however I think that we have to give a very unfair advantage to men in order to maximize women's range of men that are above her, thus attractive.

My guess would be to leave it as it is but :

  • make a tax only for women, like 35% of all revenues, slowly going down until her menopause or her 3rd baby. In return, married couples would be gifted like 1000$ per month for 1 year whenever they have a baby.
  • For girls : replace some hours of standard education in school by cooking classes etc... For men : train them to be more active by adding 2 hours of sport every day + extra scholar activities of their choice.

That's just my idea of it, there are probably better ideas out there

1 upvotesLambdal72 years ago

I don't see the causality between lower birth rates and fall of society though, or what is the causality you are proposing for the cyclic fall of society?

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

this is kind of the summary but I'd recommend watching the whole video :
https://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw?t=30m46s

1 upvotesLambdal72 years ago

Hm, the video seems like it's basing their whole premise of made up facts that less males are less and less interested in being part of the workforce and paying, because of the whole feminism trend.

However, men's and women's unemployment rates are almost indistinguishable as they have ever been and have been even increasing recently. http://bber.unm.edu/blog/?p=271

So, it seems like this whole narrative is fake news, since it's based on assumptions that do not exist, is it not?

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Yeah you should watch the whole video

4 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

2 upvotesphoneticau2 years ago

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

2 upvotesLeonidas_792 years ago

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

2 upvotescanadianmooserancher2 years ago

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

2 upvotesicedupsmackhead2 years ago

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.

5 upvotes_Aaronstotle2 years ago

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

3 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

4 upvotesdr_warlock2 years ago

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.

3 upvotesLeonidas_792 years ago

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.

1 upvotesmcpaulus2 years ago

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

4 upvotesRabalaz2 years ago

Shhh. Don't burst their bubble.

13 upvotescoco54402 years ago

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.

39 upvotesTheDevilsAdvokaat2 years ago

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.

10 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

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.

11 upvotesDeep_freeze2022 years ago

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.

12 upvotesBrazilian_Slaughter2 years ago

The Middle East suffers a bad case of Islam

1 upvotesZachar1a2 years ago

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

5 upvotesBrazilian_Slaughter2 years ago

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.

0 upvotesAllHailEuropa2 years ago

No, it wasn't. Catholic monasteries did that.

1 upvotesDerek13822 years ago

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.

lol wut

The Middle East was a cradle of civilization and massively advanced region well before oil. They moved outside "sandstone huts" before Europeans did. Its states and Empires dictated the flow of history, from the earliest days of sumer to the awesome power of the Ottoman Empire. They fell into relative backwardness in the 20th century, but imagining them as living in "sandstone huts" is hilariously ignorant.

1 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

The Middle East was a cradle of civilization and massively advanced region well before oil.

Which is why when we came to the Middle East in the late 18th century every nation there was as modern as major European countries, right?

The only country that mattered there was the Ottoman Empire, who was defeated even tho it had help from Germany.

Most of the Middle East got removed as a player by Mongol invasion in 14th century and they never recovered from that. Turks (the Ottoman Empire) took over what was left and held it till the end of WW1. Not Palestinians, not Iraqis, Iranis, Egyptians, Libyans, Saudi Arabians. They were all held together for 6 centuries (14-20) by the Turks, which was the only local country that resembled modern power.

"sandstone huts"

Overblown metaphor to show the industrial contrast between Europe and middle East in early 20th century.

1 upvotesDerek13822 years ago

The only country that mattered there was the Ottoman Empire

The only country there was the Ottoman Empire. It controlled all that we consider to be "Middle East" nowadays.

Most of the Middle East got removed as a player by Mongol invasion in 14th century and they never recovered from that. Turks (the Ottoman Empire) took over what was left and held it till the end of WW1. Not Palestinians, not Iraqis, Iranis, Egyptians, Libyans, Saudi Arabians. They were all held together for 6 centuries (14-20) by the Turks, which was the only local country that resembled modern power.

A lot of confusion here:

  • Palestianian, Iraqi and Saudi are all modern identities that didn't exist in the time period in question.

  • Iran was its own kingdom and was never conquered by the Ottomans.

  • The Ottoman Empire didn't "resemble" modern power, it was a major power for most of its history, which included the conquest of much of Europe. It wasn't the kind of survivor state barely hanging onto relevance that you seem to think.

Overblown metaphor to show the industrial contrast between Europe and middle East in early 20th century.

And in the early 19th century their GDP per capita was comparable to France, and they were well on their way to independent industrialization by 1850. Individual snapshots don't mean much, they certainly don't paint the picture of a region that stayed backward until oil.

1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

Compared to contemporary societies most of Western Europe has been comparatively egalitarian for hundreds of years.

6 upvotescoco54402 years ago

It makes sense that a society that takes advantage of the talents of all its citizens will out compete a society that figuratively shackles 50% of its citizens.

1 upvotesTheDevilsAdvokaat2 years ago

This is completely wrong, even taking into account the "comparatively".

You know women were only awarded the vote relatively recently, right? 1928 in the UK for voting equality with men.

And there used to be restrictions on women owning property and goods..in some cases when a woman's husband died, she was then unable to look after her own goods, custody of the goods was awarded to her brother (or uncle or father) who then stole them from her or sold them or whatever..

Women had very little freedom until relatively recently, even in the west.

Also, until the divorce laws were changed, a rich man could divorce his wife and kick her out without a cent...there was no "maintenance" or "alimony" back then, That's why "diamonds are a girl's best friend" - the idea was you took your personal jewellery when you went, and then sold the gems to buy food, shelter etc.

Women were restricted educationally, vocationally, maritally, legally, financially... they were not the legal equals of men.

Please note I am not saying this is right; just pointing out that this is how it was.

7 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

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.

1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

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).

5 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

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'.

1 upvotesIncel98762 years ago

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).

Your mistake was to move to California or any blue state, those may be "in the USA," but they "ain't America," not anymore, not for decades now. Your wife could drop her job, and you could better off of just your income in America.

5 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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.

0 upvotescoco54402 years ago

A slowly falling population is not such a bad thing. Will certainly make housing more affordable.

Regarding women being biologically inferior -- WTF!!! There is very little need for brute strength these days -- women are in the workforce to stay -- don't be a pussy just get over it and adapt.

6 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

but its indisputable fact that women are biologically inferior, women would get easily out competed in tje work force today if it werent for all the feminist help programs and quotation laws that favor them over men. This is also the case in the education system.

In spite of all these handicaps, men still outperform women in STEM fields and jobs that are still physical, almost all contruction jobs still require strenght in spite of the use of machines, and womens bodies are to fragile to handle these jobs long term, which is why even if businesses try to recruit many women here to fulfil quotas, most of these women end up quitting within a few years due to injuries etc. Women are also less mentally adapted to handle working as much as men.

im not a pussy just i always prioritize the truth over not hurting sensitive people.

1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

This is an ongoing issue with TRP. While this site has been incredibly useful for me in gaining insight into how and why women behave the way they do the site is also home to far too many people with racist and sexist views.

7 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

thats not the issue, the issue is weak and dumb emotional people who refuse to believe in anything that doesnt paint them in a positive light. The world doesnt care about fairness or equality, it has always been survival of the fittest, and some species fail to adapt and go extinct. Sometimes due to competition with other superior species.

There is no reason to believe or assume that the human genders are equal when we dont witness equality in most other animal species, especially when all data available points to men being superior as well.

Cry about it or get over it. Nature is both racist and sexist by default for not making everyone biologically equal, and pointing out that fact does not make a person sexist or racist, just logical. And denying these facts like you do simply makes you ignorant or stupid.

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

9 upvotescoco54402 years ago

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.

6 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

Which has a lot to do with how much a county values and invests in education. This is an area where the United States lags .

Without foreign talent our colleges and university would be in big trouble. We poach talent from all other the world and then complain about immigrants.

4 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

No one is complaining about immigrants from Europe, Aus, NZ, SA. It's the non-white immigrants that don't assimilate. And that have higher rates of crime and lower workforce participation

6 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

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).

2 upvotescoco54402 years ago

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

2 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

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.

3 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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

1 upvotescoco54402 years ago

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.

3 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

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.

5 upvotesFLFTW162 years ago

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.

3 upvotesmcpaulus2 years ago

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.

5 upvotesRabalaz2 years ago

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.

2 upvotesLeonidas_792 years ago

Seems we’re headed that way

3 upvotesJimiJons2 years ago

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.

1 upvotesLeonidas_792 years ago

Aka The Byzantine Empire which eventually became the Ottoman Empire

13 upvotesfakenate12 years ago

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.

8 upvotesmax_peenor2 years ago

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.

5 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

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.

1 upvotesAnjaJutta2 years ago

Hey Muslim. The name "Byzantine" is an exonym given by western scholars to the Eastern Roman Empire who rightly called themselves Romans. They were a part of the Roman Empire that lived on. The language shift came after Rome was split into two. As for mentioning Russia, that's a strawman you built up only to destroy two sentences later, without it having anything to do with what fakenate1 said.

1 upvotesChaddeus_Rex2 years ago

I know that Byzantium is an exonym invented after the split. Too bad you can't provide any argument and have to resort to sounding smart by using terms like 'strawman'. Too bad you don't know what it means.

The east was always Greek. In the WRE they only used Latin as the 'State' language for administrative matters and as the lingua-franca. In the ERE, it was Latin and Greek, but Greek was more popular as those who knew Greek were seen as being more cultured. This divide was further pronounced after the split.

5 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read.

8 upvotesThrawy1242 years ago

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

5 upvotesOrsick2 years ago

The comments are even dumber.

1 upvotesJamesSkepp2 years ago

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".

1 upvotesm4t312 years ago

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.

1 upvotesabstractplebbit2 years ago

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

1 upvotesslamdunktiger862 years ago

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.

1 upvotesfight_me_fam422 years ago

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.

1 upvotesBig_Dombo2 years ago

TLDR: This history is rubbish, ignore it and whatever you get out of it.

This version of Roman history that OP presents is absolute nonsense. Roman society was incredibly patriarchical throughout its entire history, and only a very few particularly wealthy women enjoyed a level of autonomy during certain periods.

The rest of his points are riddled with errors. 1st century BCE Rome wasn't a blossoming utopia, it was a failed state ravaged by civil wars, with hundreds of thousands killed and an overgrown urban population living in squalor and poverty. All the complaints about divorce and bachelors were about the top .1% of society. These definitely weren't the type of people who were joining the army. The family unit was never destroyed, as any epigraphic survey will blatantly show.

As for this "moral collapse" carry on, this idea is several centuries out of date. The causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire were political and military, perhaps economic but definitely not moral or social. There is no underlying moral weakness causing collapse in Rome, and feminism certainly isn't to blame for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire; it didn't exist then. Don't make up history to justify your views.

Also as a side note recent archaeological surveys have found that in early agrarian societies (2000 BCE - 500 AD) women's skeletons show evidence that they engaged in frequent, hard manual labour. Peasant societies (like Rome) were a whole lot more egalitarian in terms of economic activity than this comment section would make out.

1 upvotesteunzinho2 years ago

I believe, from your Story, that feminism or weak empires are created from good times. It’s like the meme: strong men create good times. Good times, weak men. Weak men, hard times. Hard times, strong men. When (like I saw in the highest comment, shoutout to that man) people do not need to focus on Just surviving anymore, they grow lazy and Some people tend to take advantage of that. When feminists saw that feminism was accepted they started to push further. That was When they screwed up. Because they wanted more attention instead of basic rights (wich they already had) people started to “retaliate”, and that triggered the feminists. And so we are where we are today.

(Excuse me If my spelling is off, Dutchie here)

1 upvotesfondthinker2 years ago

But this does not make sense: "femenisim and future is an oxymoron" and the misconclusions drawn from tenuous comparison. Civilisations always decline and change. There is no logical causal reason for democratic femenist values to bring 'the end' (more likely the opposite, a longer continuation because it precisely breaks cyclic patterns). Because - surprise - pre-modern societies are very different to the liberal democracies of today. Abuse, child labour, slavery, sexisim are rampantly illegal, for instances. There is economic abundance. And the very root of what we call femenisim emerged with Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill quite recently; not in pre-modern times before large scale constitutional democracy, high technology, nations, globalised capitalism, standardised education, scientific enlightenment and all!

1 upvotesRonTomJohnson2 years ago

Some don't claim Christianity to be a rewrite of a Babylonia religion. It is a rewrite of the Babylonian religions, which were a rewrite of egyptian/Mesopotamian, and summarian religions. All contain an immaculate conception. All contain God sending a son to earth. Most talk of a great flood or similar major cataclysmic event. Which is very interesting with new evidence coming out about a possible meteor impact some 50,000-10,000BC. There is a layer of, I believe, a tungsten isotope, covering the planet, all in the same sedimentary time frame. This isotope, check that it is actually tungsten I could be wrong, only occurs when a meteor impact happens. Then, you have golbeki teppa, which is completely out of place in geological and anthropological terms, and appears to have been purposefully buried many meters deep, as if they wanted to preserve it. Humans as we know it, have been around for several hundred thousand years. I think there have been many advanced civilizations throughout this time. Golbeki teppa is only what we have found so far.

I think this is important because it goes against what we are taught historically. Same with the idea that Christianity is somehow a religion that came to be on its own. It is a blatant copy of the religions that came before it. Not, kind of like the ones that came before. Most of the stories are exact copies from the others.

Why is this important on the red pill? Because you should strive for truth in everything. If you don't know where you came from. It's a hell of a lot harder to determine where you should go. Not to mention, sorry Christians, that's just some feel good bullshit because you haven't come to terms with your death and mortality. Again, they are just copied stories from the people who were around before that time. It is a means to control you and make you submit. It wasn't until Cyril made Christianity the religioun of Rome, that it really began to fall apart. All scientifically minded people were then seen as speaking blasphemy against the church, and many were killed.

Again, this is important because most people don't have a true understanding of history. They have a watered down version from what the education system wants them to know, and no more. Having that knowledge makes you powerful. The powers at be enjoy their power, and would prefer it if you remained stupid and powerless, as to not threaten them.

1 upvotestolerantman2 years ago

A few centuries? Try a few decades...

1 upvotesBoshackalaka2 years ago

This is more of correlation than causation. It's pretty well documented why the Roman Empire failed, and feminism has little to no effect on it.

I am not saying that the current iteration of feminism is good, but making it the all encompassing evil just to fit a certain narrative is not logical either. We have to be factual, and if we are there are many more probable causes to the fall of Roman Empire.

The current iteration of feminism (third wave feminism) is actually more like communism, where you want equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity. More relevant example and also much more recent.

1 upvotesWaterCoder2 years ago

2030 AD France 2040 AD Germany 2050 AD rest of eu except the viking states(excluding sweden)

3 upvotespanzerbier2 years ago

Pretty sure the Eastern EU states will remain standing, too. 0 immigrants and still fairly conservative family policies; feminism is present but not especially rabid.

-1 upvotesblackedoutfast2 years ago

i'm pretty sure people have been saying "this is just like the fall of the roman empire" basically non stop since it happened.

-6 upvotesOmegaMan22 years ago

Sparta is another case in point. At one point 300 Spartans held off the entire Persian Army at the Thermopylae Pass. As women gained ever more say in the affairs of state, property rights, etc..., Sparta went into decline and they were eventually conquered by the Romans.

28 upvotesTRP_mask2 years ago

That's a myth, there weren't really 300 spartans who held off the entire Persian army. The reason the Greek states were conquered easily by the Romans is because they fought too many wars between each other and to defend themselves from the big empires east of them. They simply didn't have the numbers anymore.

14 upvotesOmegaMan22 years ago

There were also Thespians, Thebans and a number of helots as well. The Spartan hoplite, was however unmatched by any other warriors of the ancient world

As for the decline of Sparta, Aristotle attributes the decline of Sparta to Spartan women's love of the luxurious life, especially after the influx of riches following Sparta's victory in the Peloponnesian War. (See Wikipedia for more info). The result was a decline in the number of babies born.

Aristotle's basic assertion is that Sparta's decline was due to the fact that it became a gynocentric society, with all of the problems associated with that transition.

3 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

I just got through reading about this. Unlike women in the rest of ancient Greece, Spartan women could inherit property and accrue wealth, especially if their husband's died while away at war. When Spartan men went to war and didn't come back, their wives back home inherited their estates. Since Sparta was so warlike this eventually led to a great amount of land and wealth in Sparta being owned by women. Aristotle noted that compared to Athenian women, these Spartan women tended to have overly lavish and decadent lifestyles, spending large amounts of money on frivolous products like elaborate clothing and jewelry (sound familiar?) and hosting parties/getting drunk/sleeping with other men while the Spartan warriors were away fighting. As women gained more wealth and freedom their birthrates also plummeted, and when Sparta suffered heavy military defeats later in its history, the Spartan birthrate was in such decline that they were unable to replace their manpower losses. There was a severe gender ratio imbalance towards the end of Sparta's reign and women weren't having children anymore. Because women can't do the work of men or fight like men, and they were living lifestyles not dissimilar to modern Western women, Sparta was ultimately doomed.

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

You are a retard for believing that.

4 upvotesOmegaMan22 years ago

Provide a rational counter argument or STFU.

Don't go around proclaiming your ignorance like some beta dolt.

4 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

I am referring to the myth that 300 Spartans held off a Persian army. This is categorically false.

4 upvotesOmegaMan22 years ago

The Persians eventually overcame the Spartans, but the Spartans held the Persians at bay for 2 days, allowing the bulk of the Greek Army to escape. It was a rear guard action to be sure, and it ended with the annihilation of the Spartans but it went down as one of the greatest of military actions ever.

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Thats all good and dandy. Still wasn't solely 300 Spartans.

0 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

No this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Man watched the movie 300 and took it for a fact lmao even in the 300 Rise Of An Empire they show the Spartans weren't alone and had over 10,000 other soldiers with them.

5 upvotesOmegaMan22 years ago

Originally it was 7,000 Greek Hoplites against 150,000 Persians. Ancient accounts put the number at over 1,000,000 but the more likely figure for the Persian strength was 120,000 to 300,000 troops. That is still a massive advantage over the Greeks in terms of numbers and attests to the magnificence of the Greek Hoplite.

Those 7,000 troops stopped the Persian advance for about 7 days. The Greeks were subsequently betrayed by a local resident and when Leonidas found out about the Persian flanking manoevre, he sent the bulk of the Greek army to safety while he along with his 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans held off the Persians for another 2 days.

Think about it! 1,400 against 150,000! Those are fearful odds and yet those few Hoplites saved Greek and the Western civilization which was to follow.

1 upvotesmcpaulus2 years ago

But did it matter though? Do you know what happened in the minths after the battle of thermopylae? The persians basically fucked greece in her hairy asshole

1 upvotesOmegaMan22 years ago

Very true. Athens was sacked but the population was evacuated. The main Persian army withdrew as Xerxes did not want to be stuck in Europe over the winter. The conquest of Greece was left to a subordinate who ended up being defeated. That along with a naval victory over the Persians and Greece was saved.

I suppose one could argue differently but in my opinion the last stand of Leonidas and his Spartans, Thespians and Thebans was a defining moment in the history of Western Civilization.

1 upvotesmcpaulus2 years ago

You could also argue, like many historians do, that the last stand of Leonidas and his Spartans was actually a massive failure. They couldn't hold that pass more than a mere days. Weaklings for sure.

I'd say Themistocles and the battle of Salamis was far more important.

Thermapylae surely had a more propagandic value though.

As for the decline of Sparta, Aristotle attributes the decline of Sparta to Spartan women's love of the luxurious life, especially after the influx of riches following Sparta's victory in the Peloponnesian War. (See Wikipedia for more info). The result was a decline in the number of babies born. Aristotle's basic assertion is that Sparta's decline was due to the fact that it became a gynocentric society, with all of the problems associated with that transition.

The decline of Sparta was btw not at all due to feminism. The problem was that very few of the spartans was real spartans. Most of them were Helots, and the Spartan social structure was very fucked up. Meaning that about 5% of the males were considered full citizens, and was the fighting force. One of the main reason the spartans was so great fighters, was because all they had to do was fight, as their slaves/subjects did the rest. This was alos WHY they had to train, as they were in constant fear of a slave/helot rebellion (which of course happened from time to time).

Seeing as there was very few "true" spartans, they were susceptible to to manpower loss from different sources. At Leuctria in 371 BC, Sparta lost 400 men in a battle, and never really recovered from this. The spartans married late, and there was no social mobility whatsoever, and quite a few fell into poverty (you had to pay an annual fee to be a true spartan) and was considered periokoi or second class citizens. These factors were far greater than the supposedly luxuryloving spartan women that old fool Aristotle is rambling on about :)

-4 upvotesmoronicpillow2 years ago

The biggest Red Pill is the Black Pill.

0 upvotesSkiffbug2 years ago

That’s all good and well, but you’re picking out two empires that collapsed and pinning a vaguely supported hypothesis on one, and barely nothing on the other.

From a historical point of view, there were a hell of a lot more empires that grew and fell throughout history, which your post ignores.

I know not whether you hypotheses also has support in those events, but the lack of even a mention of those reeks of low-effort. It seems like you watched a YouTube video and posted your outtakes.





© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.