Does female sexual liberation mark the last stage of a civilization collapse?

how many books on civilization collapse have you read?

you can't sustain a civilization where the average male don't trust the average woman to carry his children.

>yfw in the next major war 10s of millions of neets will refuse to get drafted or get factory jobs necessary to keep the war going because Chad was hoarding all the pussy
our time is coming soon brothers we will have the last laugh

This time will be different. This time Japan will have made fembots so the beta uprising won't take place.

Unless women are stupid enough to legislate over fembots.

Our country is founded on the premise that citizens can live, work and marry freely. I think it's served us pretty well.

Everyone will just die in a nuclear hellfire anyway, there would be no point even trying to fight.

A civilization's collapse doesn't look like you think it does, sometimes it's fast, sometimes it's a war, sometimes a mix of many factors that slowly erode it over time until it stops being relevant. The "cucks" have little to do with it, although sometimes it's a single individual that sets things in motion to bring down a nation, like you know, Hitler.

the conditions are diferent but the cycle is the same.

is like saying that being old is not followed by death because some people die young.
in this case, being old and degeneracy are the same.

>degeneracy
I sinceely pity people like you. The past, the real past, not the idealized stuff you see in art or read about in other works was not noble or righteous. Go read any serious book about the bronze age for example.

> being old and degeneracy are the same.

Um no, degeneracy has destroyed no nation. economic collapse and foreign invasion (I mean an army not immigrants) maybe, but "degenerate" nations have survived for centuries.

I didn't mean is the cause of the collapse, is a correlation factor, that's why I said old.

societies begin with a strong social cohesion, this lessens over generations until in the end there is a degeneracy shit, like gay shit, females being sluts, crime, drugs, the break of the family core unit, inmigration, race mixing and all that shit.

That society in the ends lack social cohesion needed to defend it from invaders.

Just like today sweden.

>societies begin with a strong social cohesion, this lessens over generations until in the end there is a degeneracy shit, like gay shit, females being sluts, crime, drugs, the break of the family core unit, inmigration, race mixing and all that shit.
Jesus Christ, you really don't know anything that isn't meme history.

This board is fucked

memes are the name of the chan game, it simply conveys information easily and faster.

>societies begin with a strong social cohesion

No, they really don't. They begin with a tenuous web of connections that sustains itself like a cluster of annelid worms and manages to prosper in its material conditions, and then eventually this web of connections either changes or is forcibly changed into another form.

Shimoneta

the invaders usually comes from more tribal and traditional societies.

just like today africans and muslims on europe.

My goodness yes

That doesn't really hold. Plenty of non-traditional invaders have screwed over more traditional or conservative societies (the 20th century is in fact defined in large part by the conservative regimes of two separate Germanies getting their shit pushed in by less traditional or conservative or tribalistic opponents).

You're doing whatever you can to stretch history to fit your narrative to legitimize your own ideals. It's really poor form intellectually speaking.

You just described the height of the Roman Empire, yet somehow it managed to survive for several more centuries and died AFTER all that shit ended.

>the invaders usually comes from more tribal and traditional societies.
No. Just no. Carthague was hardly destroyed and salted by barbarians.

what do you mean by traditional?
maybe we're using diferent terms.

I mean they have traditional roles.

The roman empire collapse in the IV century.

>but it survived in other name
may as well say that the vatican being real today makes the roman empire still alive today.

Again, I think you don't understand how a collapse works.

explain it then.
maybe we're talking about diferent things.

>The roman empire collapse in the IV century.
Yeah and all the shit you described was happening in the I century.

a civilization generally last 10 generations (255 years).

Now that's some high caliber bullshit. Either that or you have a very peculiar (read: dumb, retarded, aplicable only when it's convenient) definition of civilization.

the citation comes from Fate of empires.

Basing that off that retarded meme image posted here? You going to ignore the fact that Rome itself was an empire for over 400 years, and a regional power for over 600? Or that Assyria was a major power for nearly 1000? Or that China maintained a stable state, unbroken only several times that lasted for at most 100 years, for nearly 2000?

>Fate of empires
Read: Empire. The French and British both lost all claims to that title over 50 years ago but their civilization/society sure as fuck didn't collapse.

>he thinks there's diferent versions, dinasties, kingdoms and eras in those examples

French and British empires collapsed, so your point?

collapse doesn't mean the population all dies retard.

I just looked it up, the way he arrives as this number is transparently BS.

He counts the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire as separate civilizations to make the 250 year thing work. The "fall" of the latter is dated to 180, ignoring the Dominate totally.

The end of the Islamic golden age is dated to 880, a date of no particular significance

The "fall" of the Ottoman Empire apparently occurred in 1570, again a date of no particular significance. Why not 1683? Or y'know, when they actually collapsed, in 1922?

Spain is said to have collapsed in 1750, yet again a date of no particular significance. 1643 or 1808 would make more sense, but that wouldn't fit the neat narrative.

There are probably more.

>French and British Empires collapsed
France and Britain still maintain a cultural and national hegemony
Do you considered each roman dynasty, or even each roman emperor with a change of policy a "collapse"? Do you consider the transition of power from the Roman Senate to the Roman emperor a collapse? You're gonna have to qualify "collapse" cause everyone here thinks your a moron dealing in topics that you have no nuanced knowledge of.

The nuclear family breaks down. A tree begins at its roots, and a rootless tree falls.

Men are by design the providers and protectors of their society, women the caretakers and child raisers. These roles are not set only by society, but by nature. To go against them is to work against nature rather than with it, and we're weaker working against the forces of nature.

Men tend to think more logically, women more emotionally, and therefore they should not be involved in political affairs. To make critical decisions based on quick emotional response is to make mistakes, such as letting a bunch of people that hate you and have a completely contrary culture to yours flood your country because you saw a picture of some dead baby.. for example. Women voting and being able to hold office will be the death of the West, and getting to this point starts with "sexual revolution" which takes women out of their feminine and motherly roles and basically turns them into free whores roaming the streets. I get that they want to have fun, but we're not going to build a great society in this way. Girls seem to hate when guys "have fun" and sit around playing video games all day, thus not fulfilling masculine and fatherly roles.

But no one will listen because I'm a reactionary bigot, we're pretty much beyond fucked at this point anyway. Oh well, start stocking up on water filters.

so your argument is that civilizations don't follow the same cycles?

The point you're making you blithering idiot is that the fall of an empire somehow equates to societal of civilization collapse. Just because the Tang dynasty was replaced or the Brits lost their overseas colonies doesn't mean the native population somehow experienced some kind of dark age or regression resulting in a new social order.

No my "argument" is that you haven't qualified "collapse."
You haven't shown any evidence that society is currently collapsing and you certainly haven't shown us any pattern of civilizations falling due to the social changes your arguing against.
In the real world things are dichotomies with beginnings and ends. A nation isn't its government, and cultural changes don't have a measurable net + or - factor like some video game.

t. brainwashed /pol/ virgin

youtube.com/watch?v=K-y2aqYwOQ0

>there's not a current economic decline of the west
>bluepilled idiots.

Nice goalposts you mongoloid.

More like disinformation

>bluepill
Just stop.

What you're describing is a "talking point" and Orwell generally held them to be the height of unthinking rhetoric

>all those related video recommendations
Jesus Christ. Ishygddt

What use would NEETs be anyway? There are reasons we can't get jobs or relationships.

You'd just get thrown in jail for treason and be used up by Jamal or shot in a firing squad if you refused military orders

>It wasn't the case for ottomans.

OP said 'CIVILIZATION'

/pol/ is amazing, you're like a right wing California. How do you manage to be so wrong while feeling so smugly superior?

no, authoritatian demagogues do

>he hasn't read the collapse of complex societies
>he thinks societies collapse because of muh degeneracy and "culture" whatever that means

LMAO

diminishing returns lead to collapse, not anything to do with women

This

Except this is only true when living a natural life style. Our current economic system doesn't necessitate men or women being primary providers or care takers as most jobs generally provide the tools and training to be done by either. It doesn't matter if man was built to hunt when his job is in a fucking call center. There's nothing natural about it or 90% of other jobs out there.

And how can a woman trust that child will be provided for?

Marriage? Propriety? Neither of those saved Rome. Neither of them saved Old China.

Trying to classify declines systematically is an endeavor in futility.

Behavioral sink.

Rome was so sexually liberal, Augustus had to set laws to fight it which nobody gave a shit about because it was autistic.

And that was at the height of the empire.

activities about sex and food are the two activities where you encounter the most diversity of likes and dislikes. it is retarded to want to control them and judge them

>it is retarded to want to control them and judge them

Pretty easy to do so though.

>diminishing returns lead to collapse, not anything to do with women

You mean diminishing returns like a birth rate below replacement?

>I mean they have traditional roles.

Traditional in your view. But the Roman social order at the height of Pax Romana scarcely resembles any social order at the height of what we would call "western civilization."

The rise and fall of societies is mostly a matter of material constraints, which can be mitigated, but not entirely overcome by ideals.

So are you saying that male sexual liberation was already a thing before female one? How can one exist without the other? The only thing that comes to mind is ancient Greece where women were owned and protected by their families or husbands while men were free to have buttsex whenever they liked.

>the past wasn't perfect, therefore everything sucked
Do you sincerely believe this? Progressivism truly is an illness of the mind.

you know that greek women made plenty of cuckolds

Gains in economy and Qol decrease the higher you are.

Access to electricity 24/7 is massive.

Technically theres the Belief that the Greeco-Roman world was its own Civilization

Trust me, you don't want to watch it. It's kinda lewd.

>factory jobs
Automated by robots

>you can't sustain a civilization where the average male don't trust the average woman to carry his children.

It's a good thing the average male isn't a basement-dwelling neckbeard.

I miss when Veeky Forums was a bunch of apathetic self-hating losers instead of a bunch of paranoid right-wing extremists.

t. roasty

Don't worry it's all ironic

No, it's not.

>implying

It really isn't.

go away normalfag

Humans have always been degenerate. The only people freaking out about humanity somehow getting "worse" are sheltered millennials who are finally getting their first taste of reality and are unable to cope emotionally with the harsh world and are trying to retreat back into the womb. Well there are also old farts who legitimately think America was "great" in the past for anyone but the elites because they too are clinging to a romanticized past based on the happiness they experienced in childhood. Right wing conservatives are just nostalgiafags.

I fucking wish.

>That's stupid and you're stupid; the argument

Generally female anything is an obstacle. Ideally we would remove females from existence but they're sadly needed for reproduction. I'd say we keep them on farms like fish and artificially inseminate them until the artificial womb is technologically viable.

Why would you all lie to yourselves on a internet board on the fact that out of control degeneracy, the destruction of the nuclear family and community values is detrimental to civilization?

Why be intellectually dishonest when you're anonymous?

No, it is something with no historical parallel and thus exclusive to pos-industrial revolution civilizations.
>But some brit said that
British historiography is joke, taking any absurd shit they read as being the gospel while people in the times Roman Empire knew to not take everything they read as being accurate.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen

Tell me where I'm wrong.

There's something spooky going on in this thread.

>that pic

If anything humanity is becoming more moral and less degenerate which is why we are so triggered by things that used to be normal in the past. Like prostitution, or child marriage.

>child marriage
in Europe? it was only used amongst the dukes and kings for land claims, average marriage age was 25

Why are you on a website that has prompted "degeneracy" for over a decade?

>the fate of empires.

Heloo Mayan wife! Good to see you still love me, but uh, the droughts still on, so looks like our civilisation is boned anyways.

I don't understand the love for nuclear family. A household should be and least three or four generational, not just dad + mom + kids. The idiotic notion that children should leave the house upon reaching adulthood is one of the things that killed the west.

Boomers. Anything they remember from their childhoods is an american tradition.

And this thread is still going strong

Kill yourselves mods

And this is why south slavs + mediterraneans are the true master race.

>tfw your fifty year old father is still living with his mother