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

Online_Identity · 2017-12-03T16:16:52+00:00

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

max_peenor · 2017-12-03T15:27:17+00:00

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.

2comment · 2017-12-04T03:59:28+00:00

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.

grimlocksgauntlet · 2017-12-03T21:50:33+00:00

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.

AwesomeCool909 · 2017-12-03T12:19:01+00:00

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

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).
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.

Brazilian_Slaughter · 2017-12-03T18:32:17+00:00

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.

alucardarian · 2017-12-04T09:09:32+00:00

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.

Ketogainsmongoose · 2017-12-04T07:14:29+00:00

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.

GEN_GOTHMOG · 2017-12-03T15:29:14+00:00

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.

SaintHolland · 2017-12-03T21:53:03+00:00

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.

kosta123 · 2017-12-03T16:45:37+00:00

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

asapkokeman · 2017-12-04T07:33:15+00:00

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.

chazthundergut · 2017-12-03T16:19:34+00:00

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

Velebit · 2017-12-04T04:40:31+00:00

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

Derek1382 · 2017-12-04T06:22:28+00:00

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.

gardenofbacchus · 2017-12-04T00:19:38+00:00

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.

Lambdal7 · 2017-12-04T11:52:15+00:00

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

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.
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.

OGmajor · 2017-12-03T16:05:35+00:00

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

tailingloop · 2017-12-03T16:18:25+00:00

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

Your_Coke_Dealer · 2017-12-04T03:17:05+00:00

Simple explanation:

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

Rosace_89 · 2017-12-04T09:30:07+00:00

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

BokehClasses · 2017-12-04T11:34:38+00:00

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 :)

mcpaulus · 2017-12-03T22:48:44+00:00

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.

screwbitchesgetmoney · 2017-12-03T18:20:11+00:00

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

coco5440 · 2017-12-03T15:10:00+00:00

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.

phoneticau · 2017-12-04T03:33:13+00:00

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

canadianmooserancher · 2017-12-04T06:08:21+00:00

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

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

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

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

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

icedupsmackhead · 2017-12-04T11:19:17+00:00

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

_Aaronstotle · 2017-12-03T19:42:15+00:00

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

fakenate1 · 2017-12-03T15:18:39+00:00

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.

FLFTW16 · 2017-12-03T21:46:49+00:00

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.

JimiJons · 2017-12-03T23:21:49+00:00

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.

targus_4d3d3d3 · 2017-12-03T16:08:42+00:00

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read.

JamesSkepp · 2017-12-03T14:50:47+00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and women become emancipated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The wealth and power of women grows very fast,

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

Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.

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

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

Of citizens, not average plebs.

Vice and massive corruption are rampant,

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

There is extreme economic, political and military instability:

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

Quote from OP

it results in a massive immigration to sustain demography

Really now...

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

m4t31 · 2017-12-03T22:15:29+00:00

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

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

abstractplebbit · 2017-12-03T22:28:20+00:00

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

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

slamdunktiger86 · 2017-12-04T04:49:31+00:00

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

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

fight_me_fam42 · 2017-12-04T05:44:36+00:00

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.

Big_Dombo · 2017-12-04T11:30:30+00:00

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.

teunzinho · 2017-12-04T16:12:11+00:00

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)

fondthinker · 2017-12-04T18:08:07+00:00

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!

RonTomJohnson · 2017-12-04T18:25:58+00:00

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.

tolerantman · 2017-12-05T19:19:50+00:00

A few centuries? Try a few decades...

Boshackalaka · 2017-12-05T19:36:46+00:00

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.

WaterCoder · 2017-12-03T16:34:22+00:00

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

blackedoutfast · 2017-12-03T23:10:13+00:00

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

OmegaMan2 · 2017-12-03T13:24:00+00:00

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.

moronicpillow · 2017-12-03T16:56:50+00:00

The biggest Red Pill is the Black Pill.

Skiffbug · 2017-12-04T01:28:04+00:00

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.

Title	Based on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries.
Author	-pushkin
Upvotes	674
Comments	426
Date	December 3, 2017 11:34 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/7h97u6/based_on_past_history_it_appears_that_a/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/based-on-past-history-it-appears-that-a.47528 https://theredarchive.com/post/47528

Comments