Is the transition from patriarchy to matriarchy a clear sing of societal decline?

>social progress
worst meme ever in human history

>Go back to your echo chamber so I don't have to look at anything that disagrees with me!

...

>social progress
literally meaningless

...

Here's a progressive man.

> transition from patriarchy
Mens are 95% percents of ruler class user. Such transition you have here.

But OP, in order for societal decline to be real society would have to be real.

How do you measure social progress?
Lower fertility rates? Expansion of the big brother state?

the fuck are you on about
sure is summer here

> How do you measure social progress?

That's from Toqueville huh? I thought it was from the libertarians (the though that democracy is the system of government where the mediocre majority can vote to get themselves free stuff until the state defaults, that is).

That is the key word, transition.In the western world, is almost a split between men and woman alredy, and is the more decadent place with the lowest fertility rates, and economic decline

>Social progress = more gibsmedats
Get it.

If we use your ratings, you would be right, but they are pretty much trash tbqfh

People who complain about women ruining society are inevitably virgins.

True fact.

Is a topic that has been discussed a lot through time,and some authors like Evola identified this transition as a sing of decadence.

> social decline = percent of girls who doesn't want to date with me
Why do you people push fertility rates so high as a measure?

Yes and every time society trudged along just fine, with people complaining about how le old days were better all throughout.

>some authors like Evola
Yes, and some authors like L. Ron Hubbard identified humans as coming from aliens. The fact that someone wrote it down some time ago does not make it a factual observation.

> economic decline
I don't see any. What do you mean by this? People doesn't live in poverty.

In reality societies don't progress or regress or walk sideways or in the diagonal or in any direction.
It's just people struggling to satisfy their desires, fighting over scarce resources, using increasingly more sophisticated means, in a general sea of sadness.
When the mediocre majority revolts because they're not getting enough, it's called a revolution.

>The demographic collapse and the big brother state are good things
>The rise of socialism has nothing to do with the rise of singlemotherhood, even if they are the more socialistic collective because welfare,and their numbers have balloned
>Arguments, you can't argue against my feelings loser

>Yes and every time society trudged along just fine, with people complaining about how le old days were better all throughout.
What do you mean
>Yes, and some authors like L. Ron Hubbard identified humans as coming from aliens. The fact that someone wrote it down some time ago does not make it a factual observation.
We are here to discuss the topic, if you dont like it you can leave

Europe is the only continent in the world with 0 net economic growth in the world.The countries that are reducing the global poverty rates are patriarcl societies like China

>He doesn't know that demographic collapse is a good thing for everyone but greedy capitalists who want cheap labour and don't want to pay more taxes in a few decades.
>He doesn't know that present states are in fact LESS big-brothery than they were in the Victorian era.
>He doesn't know that the rise of socialism is not a feminist conspiracy, but rather a natural reaction to the failings of capitalism

Societies can decline,the topic of discussion revolves,if the transition to matriarchy is one of those sings of decline

Liberalism, Marxism, etc. are just the sophistical means the middle class (which has some ambition) uses to fool the lower classes (who haven't any and will end up in the same place they were before the revolution, and the revolutionaries know it) to fool them into attacking and robing the higher classes of their scarse resources, and giving them to the middle class.

>What do you mean
I mean people have been complaining about how society is going to collapse and everything was better before X happened since basically the dawn of human civilization. Yet every time the moaners were proven wrong.
Civilization has yet to collapse. Democracy didn't ruin Europe, atheism didn't ruin Europe. Society is doing fairly alright. Even over 2000 years ago people were still going on like this

>Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We, their sons, are more
worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more
corrupt.

>We are here to discuss the topic, if you dont like it you can leave
I'm content to discuss the topic, just don't be surprised when people point out that Evola was an absolute nutjob on all fronts.

>He doesn't know that demographic collapse is a good thing for everyone but greedy capitalists who want cheap labour and don't want to pay more taxes in a few decades.
Not really.If you want to believe it is your problem.Economic decline derives in economic stagnation,and makes things like sustaining the army, or even the social security, totally unsustainable
>>He doesn't know that present states are in fact LESS big-brothery than they were in the Victorian era.
False.And the Victoria era had a rise of matriarcal ideas.On the other hand the U. S of A was the most patriarcal society in the west,and became the dominant power.When the matriarchy raised in the US,its glory days started to fade.
>He doesn't know that the rise of socialism is not a feminist conspiracy, but rather a natural reaction to the failings of capitalism
Capitalism is doing wonders in patriarcal societies like Singapure or China.Only matriarcal interventionist societies are stagnating

What is your alternative ratings? Everyone could cherry pick one trend and cry about decline over that.

>I mean people have been complaining about how society is going to collapse and everything was better before X happened since basically the dawn of human civilization. Yet every time the moaners were proven wrong.
The data points to collapse of some form.Looking at fertility rates,debt per capita, welfare captors and inflation, you can see that Europe,and the US in less measure are declining as a society,both internally and internationaly.
>I'm content to discuss the topic, just don't be surprised when people point out that Evola was an absolute nutjob on all fronts.
Totally irrelevant.Churchill also believed this.Evola was just an example

>On the other hand the U. S of A was the most patriarcal society in the west,and became the dominant power.

Right because the only thing that happened between 1910 and 1950 is women taking power in Europe.

> in patriarcal societies
In societies with cheap work force you mean?

It is a very subjective and liberal way of measuring social progress.So it is heavily influenced by a certain ideology.This is why ratings like HDI dont convince me.

They are patriarcal.South Korea or Singapure are patriarcal and have better wages than 98% of the world

> The data points to collapse
Most people was failed to predict collapse of the USSR by data, I have a zero believe in analytics here.

No,but this is not the topic of discussion.The topic of discussion is if the transition to matriarchies, is a sing of decline.

> Singapure
Isn't that just one city? You can compare it to the Luxembourg or something. Not to the entire world of the Western Civilization.

Social security is based on the idea of at the very least, replacing the old population.If the average birthrates per capita are lower than 2.1, the welfare state would collapse, unless mass inmigration happen, but mass inmigration leads to the destruction of the old society for a new one.

What is your objective measure that isn't heavily influenced by a certain ideology?

>/pol/ talks to me about safe spaces

I just putted an example.S:Korea has over 50 million people and they are doing great.

>Not really.If you want to believe it is your problem.Economic decline derives in economic stagnation,and makes things like sustaining the army, or even the social security, totally unsustainable
Fuck the army.
And social security is sustainable. The amount of money spent on it isn't actually unrecoverable in the event of a slowly declining population, it would just require a reassignment of resources from certain areas of expense to others and possibly more taxation.

>False.And the Victoria era had a rise of matriarcal ideas.On the other hand the U. S of A was the most patriarcal society in the west,and became the dominant power.When the matriarchy raised in the US,its glory days started to fade.
In terms of success we're still living in the glory days of the US.
Not to mention in the 1800s the USA was basically third world whereas more advanced societies in Europe were running the planet.

Why did those societies in Europe decline? Probably because of the two massive back to back wars that happened there. Wars that happened to be lead by men.

>Capitalism is doing wonders in patriarcal societies like Singapure or China.Only matriarcal interventionist societies are stagnating
1. If you're implying what we have now isn't capitalism, you're an idiot.
2. If you're implying China isn't "Interventionist" you're a bigger idiot.
3. Many of the most economically free countries on the planet are western countries with active and historic feminist movements.

> welfare state would collapse
So... That is your definition of societal decline?

Things like birthrates or purchasing power evolution, which are things that can be measurable.For a muslim social progress, has a different definition than to a secular liberal,which is what your ratings are based on.

Immigrants tend to be low skilled and as a whole continue less per capita in tax than they use in benefits across their lifetime.

> they are doing great.
Do you use wages as estimate of that or something else?

No, is just an example.The army would have to be cut to, and the economy would stagnate or decline,as the local market has been dwarfed

>.Looking at fertility rates,debt per capita, welfare captors and inflation
One of these is not like the other.
Aside from fertility rates the rest of these have a very simple explanation. Our current economic system is predicated on infinite growth, thus debt, spending and inflation are fine provided they never outpace economic growth.

As for fertility rates? Who cares.
>Totally irrelevant.Churchill also believed this.Evola was just an example
Churchill was also a manic that wouldn't think twice about committing war-crimes whenever it was convenient.

> Things like birthrates
Because they are a sign of social progress and we living in a Golden Age of Mali, Zambia and fucking Uganda?

To be honest, army is drowning in money without any real reason to exist as huge as it is.

China and SK having such low birthrate must proves they are matriarchal interventionist societies :^)

>Fuck the army.
This is very naive.Military expending is both necessary and brings technological progress
>And social security is sustainable. The amount of money spent on it isn't actually unrecoverable in the event of a slowly declining population, it would just require a reassignment of resources from certain areas of expense to others and possibly more taxation.
Raising taxes even more would just kill the economy.We alredy have stupidly high amounts of taxes.
>In terms of success we're still living in the glory days of the US.
The key word is decline.The US is declining as the dominant power.
>Not to mention in the 1800s the USA was basically third world whereas more advanced societies in Europe were running the planet.
It wasnt third world, and in a century surprassed both Germany and the UK in terms of GDP.
>Why did those societies in Europe decline? Probably because of the two massive back to back wars that happened there. Wars that happened to be lead by men.
The thirty years war killed a good chunk of Germany's population,and the place wasn't decadent at all, with very wealthy places and the production of great thinkers like Leibniz
>1. If you're implying what we have now isn't capitalism, you're an idiot.
Never said this
>2. If you're implying China isn't "Interventionist" you're a bigger idiot.
It is but it doesnt have as many regulations as we do.
>3. Many of the most economically free countries on the planet are western countries with active and historic feminist movements.
And those countries are becoming less free each year.Due socialdemocrats parties that are mainly voted by woman

Those societies will rise in the future,either invading european countires as migrants or becoming the economic center of the world.

> Military expending is both necessary and brings technological progress
Soviets literally destroyed themselves with that. In their cases building army and the nukes that they wasn't even used anyway.

The army has brought some of the iggest technological advancements in history, like the internet.The army is one of the few institutions that invests on research on a regular basis

Because if you spend like a retard, things like that happen.The current US military expending is sustainable, and is way more useful than expendings like welfare.

Say what you will about Sanders, but at least he did not break the law like Reagan and almost every president and presidential candidate since him.

>This is very naive.Military expending is both necessary and brings technological progress
Necessary? For what? "To protect my freedoms".

Technological progress? As far as the USA goes that's true. But this is easily solved by spending less money on the actual army but the same on R&D for things aside from weapons.

>Raising taxes even more would just kill the economy.We alredy have stupidly high amounts of taxes.
It wouldn't, in Denmark taxes are through the roof and their economy is just fine.

>The key word is decline.The US is declining as the dominant power.
The US is not getting worse. China is just getting more important, and even then you shouldn't be surprised that the US has competition. No country has ever been able to sustain being the dominant power bar none for all of history.

>It wasnt third world, and in a century surprassed both Germany and the UK in terms of GDP.
In the 1800s? Fucking yes it was. Compared to Germany then you may as well compare Japan and Nigeria today.

And of course it eventually surpassed them, because they were busy fighting giant wars that absolutely ruined their countries.

>The thirty years war killed a good chunk of Germany's population,and the place wasn't decadent at all, with very wealthy places and the production of great thinkers like Leibniz
You do realize Europe is still wealthy and produces quality academics following WW2?
Not to mention the places worst hit by the 30 years war weren't all to relevant for quite some time afterwards.

>It is but it doesnt have as many regulations as we do.
In certain areas it doesn't. But the vast majority of the economy is state owned and in recent years they've actually been privatizing.

Not to mention I'm quite glad we have regulations so we don't need to have safety nets outside of work to stop people from killing themselves to get away from their shitty jobs.

>And those countries are becoming less free each year.
Proof?

Then all the social progress in the world means nothing if the State cannot be maintained.

Rome was pretty socially progressed by that

>Putting food on people's table isn't useful
>Building robots to bomb third worlders is.

> Those societies will rise in the future
Maybe... Or they could stay the same shit holes as always. Who knows? You aren't oracle, user.

>rape
>wife

Where's the bit about Matriarchy in there? That's all about equality and liberty, the opposite of a matriarchy.

>Putting food on people's table isn't useful
>Implying that Without welfare those people would starve
>Building robots to bomb third worlders is.
>Things like the internet or Movil phone are

The army helps put food on people's tables by paying its soldiers and their families a wage. It's not a huge problem

Those Africans will emigrate or stay in Africa.They will have an impact for sure

> State cannot be maintained
Western states are maintained without problems. At the same time, more conservative ones failing hard. Remember why there exist refugees at the first place? Civil war, anything like that?

The army is in a lot of ways a welfare program, yes.

But it also spends ridiculous amounts of money not on feeding soldiers and their families. But killing other soldiers and their families.

Well... There is nothing because...
1. Matriarchy got nothing with that.
2. Western matriarchy is huge myth.

>But killing other soldiers and their families
That's it purpose yes. Why should the country care about non-citizens?

"Matriarchy" is goober code-word for feminism, which is all about equality and liberty.

Because it costs a shit ton of money.

The U.S army is also relatively self sufficient, meaning that it buys most of its materials and needs from the U.S thus employing millions of Americans. Cutting away from military spending, and adding it to welfare would also increase the amount of people on welfare.

If you think about it, high birth rates would bring an instability to society because new people add new problems.

And? It's not without purpose. Military-Industrial complex is a thing user

>Necessary? For what? "To protect my freedoms".
Yes,but not only that, also your sovereingnity.
>Technological progress? As far as the USA goes that's true. But this is easily solved by spending less money on the actual army but the same on R&D for things aside from weapons.
Most of the academia R&D money goes to very theoretical stuff, or humanities spending.I dont really know that it would give the same results,besides,an army has lots of practical uses.
>It wouldn't, in Denmark taxes are through the roof and their economy is just fine.
One of the highest consumers of antidepressants in the world,and their economy is based around taxing very little companies and tax the shit out of people.
>The US is not getting worse. China is just getting more important, and even then you shouldn't be surprised that the US has competition. No country has ever been able to sustain being the dominant power bar none for all of history.
Look at the purchasing power levels, and you will see,that there has been a decline on the US as a society too.You can also look at the low birthrates.
>And of course it eventually surpassed them, because they were busy fighting giant wars that absolutely ruined their countries.
It surprassed them before WW!
>You do realize Europe is still wealthy and produces quality academics following WW2?
But the European societies are losing relevance,and are declining both demographically and economically
>In certain areas it doesn't. But the vast majority of the economy is state owned and in recent years they've actually been privatizing.
Not regulations
>Proof?
Things like the current watch on "Hate speech" on the EU.

>...

Stop that.

I wasn't saying that a matriarchy exists but read the OP and what he replied to it:

OP asks:

"Is the transition from patriarchy to matriarchy a clear sing of societal decline?"

answers that a matriarchy is a proof of social progress, and posts
as proof.

So again....... i ask........ where does............ mention...... the matriarchy

>The U.S army is also relatively self sufficient

Wouldn't that the russian army, which gets most of its shit cheaply from state owned firms while the U.S army has to rely on private contractors that hike up the prices to ridiculous levels?

>If you think about it, high birth rates would bring an instability to society because new people add new problems.
What?

welfare is adressing the product of the problem, which is starvation among other things, it doesn't adress the actual problem.

it's the exact same principle with western societies providing welfare for africa currently, they're providing food grown from outside of africa to africa, the population booms while the production of food inside of africa is low, the massive influx of population has to invade other territories (through the """refugee""" crisis etc)

providing the food while the nation/persons production doesn't change will cost you the sum of the food, and won't do any good as the population/person will be less inclined to fix their problem

>Remember why there exist refugees at the first place
Social upheaval from the masses against the institution of various vassals of socially progressed states?

Here's the thing though.

Getting money from taxpayers, to then buy weapons from paying businesses isn't self-sufficiency. Were it not for the state redistributing money to the army they would have no money to buy weapons and collapse. Furthermore industries where the US army is the chief customer aren't really self-sufficient either, the business dealings with the army is really just a convoluted way of the state redistributing wealth to them.

It's called the military industrial complex, and it is a shitshow.

>. Cutting away from military spending, and adding it to welfare would also increase the amount of people on welfare.
It wouldn't. Army related businesses or the army itself aren't the only jobs they could hold. They could simply work elsewhere or branch into other business ventures.

>One of the highest consumers of antidepressants in the world,

kek

Yes, and it's for the benefit of people who aren't you or me.

You proved him right, your point?

Neither is claiming that we are moving towards a matriarchy /pol/ack.

>Of the top ten, 9 are the most socially progressive States on Earth

Of course, everyone understands Portugal.

You need to constantly create new jobs and such to fit in new people and if you fail than there would be huge class of people who got nothing to do, so you got the revolutions, civil wars. Society without fast changes to its population can just replace the dead people with new ones much more smoothly.