What do leftypol thinks of the Fate of Empires? And how much do you think this system will last before it collapses? Based on history, which point we are now and what will happen? What's the historical version of Trump in decaying empires?
some 1920 book or something that makes a study of several empires and find each one follows a pattern.
Basically we're now at the collapse stage where feminism makes women whores, sluts, hookup culture, inmigration, terrorism, overextended military, social collapse, no morality, etc.
The only good thing is that in the collapse, the masses uproar and genocide their elites.
meme book, cyclical history bullshit, superficial at best, ignorant at worst
Sounds like some molymeme tier bs tbh
nice counterargument, clearly convince me there.
"counterargument" You asked for my opinion and I answered. Fuck off retard.
That is retarded for numerous reasons. The Romans weren't any more or less "moral" at the end of their empire than the beginning. Empires, if they can be said to "fall" at all, do so because of structural reasons. The Roman Empire for example experienced significant demographic and population changes during the first few centuries AD. It's political structure also never evolved a way to peaceably transfer power, so you had almost annual military revolts that drained the empire of men and material. The imperial economy also experienced significant changes, as technology developed that diminished the utility in specialized city-based economies for more self-sufficient economies.
The only "moral" consideration would be the development and spread of Christianity, which had a hand in degrading the imperial economy and the political orientation, by turning people more toward city fathers and clergy for support instead of the imperial system. Values shifted, and as the imperial statement failed this sentiment only accelerated.
And all of that is aside from the matter of how one defines the collapse of an empire. Did Rome end when the city stopped being the seat of imperial power? When it was split into East and West? Did it actually "fall," or was it an organic transition from the imperial system as Germanic Kings assumed political authority? What about Byzantium, does that "count" as a continuation of Rome? They certainly perceived themselves as such.
You could derive historical patterns from the documented rise and fall if empires, but "moral decay" is the most ridiculous, arbitrary metric. It's spook city and entirely unscientific.
Hey could you not be a faggot? You aren't owed a fucking dissertation by every fucking poster.
nice arguments.(PLEB WAS BANNISHED TO DACIA MINOR THIS POST)
Oh I see you were retarded all along.
You didn't want arguments or debate it explanations, you're just here to spread your spooky retarded bullshit.
He didn't say it was pseudoscience, he gave you a reason why the "moral" metric is retarded and why the "fall and rise" of empires listed is superficial. You reply with "nice argument" and link to some hack site with a youtube video talking about the theories of some outdated, non-cited anthropologist.
Not an argument, it has been noted time and time again in history, and it repeats like clockwork. It has to do with the dycothomy between women natural hypergamous tendencies to breed with only the top 10% of males, and the natural tendencies of bottom 80% of males to have at least a wife.
Is basic biology now pseudoscience?
enjoy your ban buddy
I'm not a virgin bud. nice meme argument.
Yeah no definitely not pseudoscience
I'll put it this way:
What incentives do the bottom 80% of beta males will have to sustain a society (engage in war, defense of borders, produce wealth, sustain infraestructure) if they have no chance to have at least a single loyal wife, since women natural hypergamous tendencies are oposite of this.
Answer this question without memes, I'll wait.
Most people aren't retards obsessed with all the women that aren't fucking them and/or value things beyond the animalistic drive to reproduce.
I wonder how mgtows rationalize this when most of them clearly oppose this.
Then you better provide evidence their only fundamental incentive is that: This implies tribal and primitive societies don't have monogamous relationships, which is not true.
Anyway OP, you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded. If you want an actual REDpill instead of that mgtow placebo you've been taking, try reading a bit about materialism. Also if you think the Romans or Greeks observed sexual restraint at the "beginning" of their civilizations you're deluded.