What does Veeky Forums think of the Strong men/Weak men hypothesis?

I wish you would stop spamming the dumb quote so much suddenly

People will go through amazing mental gymnastics to not have to think about (((Who))) and Whom.

I think that works better for families/clans than for societies. Because in the same society, in the same era you have the declining hedonist and the hard working austere guy.

But this seems to be common in dynasties. Energetic men in the beginning, weak hedonists in the end (sometimes, in the very end you have hard working men trying to save them, but usually they fail).

It's very simple so retards will eat it up. There's no "hypothesis", I haven't came across a single person within the academia that have ever said something even close to it.

The Chinese Dynastic Cycle is similar to this.

"Strong men" who work hard and live an austere life lead to better living standards to their offspring.

In practice, it is not always that good times lead to weak men, since usually part of personality is genetic and parts of it are passed in educations.

There is a samurai clan where they prospered during an era and after that era had over 200 years of austere, strong rulers.

Similar. But not the same.

China doesn't believe that "Good Times Create Weak Men." More like "ruling dynasties eventually fuck up and the Mandate of Heaven is rescinded so they got booted off."

They fuck up by becoming weak men who are too busy in their harems living a luxurius life to actually rule.

They've never been the ones ruling dummy, that's the bureaucracies job

You are confusing China and Japan. Chinese emperors were not supposed to be useless.

Nope.jpg.

Again, Chinks don't put any rules to why dynasties collapsed. Its as varied as "weak, debauched emperor," the famous "EBIL EUNUCHS AND MINISTERS GIVING BAD ADVISE" explanation, Barbarian Invasion, and general accidents.

Not because "meme good times. made people weak." Although there is that one case where conservative Confucianists often blame Tang Decline for the Golden Age that it brought. But then there is the other Confucianists who blamed it on giving too much power to the military.

Pretty dumb idea that appeals to young boys and immature men who can never take responsibility for their own lack of success in life, wishfully imagining that they would have done better in (((hard times))) unlike the (((weak men))) around them. They are the same type of men who have difficulty understanding social nuances and getting along with others their age.

I don't think it is the case that they believe they would do better in hard times or that they are complaining that they are doing poorly in life. If you live in an era where there are many weak men, it is easier to beat them than if you live in an era where the men are stronger.

I at least think beating Scipio Africanus would be harder than beating some hippie.

Completely unsupported by actual history.

It's Ibn Khaldun.

Baby boomers

Isn't that an example of good times create weak men?

Bullshit /pol/ crap.

Societies fall because they got crushed by a outside force and/or failed to keep reforming. Nothing about strong or weak men.

/pol/acks use it as a excuse to regress socially, close down trade, migration and start engaging in cultural warfare to crush women, minorities and liberals. Which would only spell the end as doing that is next to impossible in the Modern world. Instead society needs to adapt to the AI future. Basic income. Energy supply. Reverse the over acculmation of capital in the hands of the wealthy few. Rome didn't fall because of weakness of men. It fell because of weakness of the state, as the growing nobility getting rid of taxation on themselves and miltary service, shifting the burden on a growing poorer lower class.

I don't think this is the case. Closing down trade, women, minorities and immigration have nothing to do with weak or strong men. One could argue that certain aspects of modern liberal ideology do lead to weaker men, but that's about it.

So the collapse because they are weaker than the outside force or too weak to keep imposing reforms. Way to prove the point, nigger

>cringe

A dumb meme for brainlets blinded by their ideology. There's nothing more to it.

meme, Rome was at its height during Nero and Caligula and was in decline during Theodosius and Justinian

These

>Basic income. Energy supply. Reverse the over acculmation of capital in the hands of the wealthy few.
kys you filthy commie

The problem with Rome is it was just an overgrown city state as a republic. They poured all their wealth into the city of Rome, which was the beating heart of the Republic, its key administrative, military, cultural, and political center. All their eggs in one basket, so to speak. The problem is one of simple logistics: they pushed the borders of the republic so far it became increasingly difficult to keep dumping everything into Rome. Sure, the aristocrats organizing the wars of conquests were still rich beyond imagination, but less and less of that wealth was reaching Rome, and the great industries of the city that had allowed it to prosper way back in the beginning were stagnating. People were leaving. It's amazing how quickly a great city can die once people decide to leave. Within a single generation you can see a glittering metropolis become a shithole. It happened to Rome, it happened to Detroit.

The nazis were the strong men

Fascist nonsense with no historical basis

look at all the good times they created! :^)

t. self proclaimed strong man

meme

t. kulak kulakovich

>the "Strong Men" of the Hunnic horde
But the Huns weren't strong, they lost and failed to accomplish anything lasting. They attempted to be strong and failed. This is a poor example.

>the Minoans were "weak feminist cucks" according to /pol/ logic
I don't think you actually know anything about /pol/ user. There are reasons to not like /pol/ but you seem to hate what you think /pol/ is more than /pol/ itself.

You define "strong" in terms of successful and "weak" in terms of unsuccessful? That's circular if you're going to show that "strong" societies are successful and "weak" aren't.

Its close. Replace "Weak men" with Leftists and "Strong Men" with Conservatives.

The decades following the 40s were the good times though.

>I don't think you actually know anything about /pol/ user. There are reasons to not like /pol/ but you seem to hate what you think /pol/ is more than /pol/ itself.

Yes. There are some people here that make a strawman of /pol/

>Its close. Replace "Weak men" with Leftists and "Strong Men" with Conservatives.

>hypothesis
You're giving it far, far too much credit. It's as much a "hypothesis" as dick-growing pills or single moms near you

If "strong" men are best then why is Afghanistan a shithole?

>t. buys testosterone pills from infowars.com

w2c tunic

Not for Germany, and most definitely for the people in Berlin. Being stripped of all pride, occupied by foreign powers, at risk of being outed as a former Nazi and arrested, war looming over your head for decades and you slowly rebuild the ruins of your country. And this isn't even East Germany. Good times after the 70s, at best.

It is sad you actually believe this

Not if you were German or Eastern European.

No, I meant the gen before them. Sorry
Strong men created the good times for the boomers, which then were weak men because of the good times

Communists were the weak men

Now here's the thing, your wrong.

You will realize your mistakes when you are older

no u

ah yes the decades following the 1940s during which Germany was either a puppet of the USA or a liberal democracy, just like the Nazis!!

your wrong on so many levels

>National Bolshevists
>Strong men
You realise they were quite literally LARPing teens who aren't even cool anymore?

I agree that Lenin and Stalin and the other early Communists were some pretty hard men, but they never really created good times, because they had a retarded ideology.
Russia has been stuck on bad times ever since.

/pol/ is its own strawman. They embody literally everything that delusional leftists imagine every conservative secretly believes.

the irony

>The problem with Rome is it was just an overgrown city state as a republic. They poured all their wealth into the city of Rome, which was the beating heart of the Republic, its key administrative, military, cultural, and political center. All their eggs in one basket, so to speak. The problem is one of simple logistics: they pushed the borders of the republic so far it became increasingly difficult to keep dumping everything into Rome.

You know Rome stopped being the center of the Empire centuries before its collapse, right? It had less of a "Paris syndrome" (oversized capital) than France or Japan while it was still at the prime of its power.

Oh wait, you were talking about the Republic specifically. Disregard that then.

That's what happens when you take kneejerk contrarianism to the point that you LARP as flat earthers or hype up the coming ice age.

muh normies

Yes I was describing the Republic, and a large reason why the city of Rome became increasingly irrelevant in the Empire is because of this process I described. Depopulation is lethal to a city like Rome because a great deal of the potentates in the city got their wealth by simply controlling entire neighborhoods and forcing people to become tenants to even live in the city proper. And back when Rome was the center of trade, commerce, and industry that meant if you were an aspiring craftsman or merchant or tradesman you would want to come to Rome and that meant renting property which made the landowners even richer. But now suppose people start quitting the city in droves, all that rent money is gone, all the crafts and indutries that made Rome a good place to conduct trade are gone, the city just turns into a big bloated husk without even the personnel necessary to maintain its basic infrastructure.

So it's no wonder that in the days of the Empire the city of Rome became a backwater akin to Detroit.

Has no merit in historical accuracy.

as sound as strong man theory