[Constitution45]

There are a lot of "collapse" threads around, but genuinely I am curious to see where this is all going. Feminism, political correct, globalisation, or is it all really just a stage of evolution that we will have to endure.

I turn on the t.v and its mostly female presenters all talking in loud strong masculine voices. Most guys can't articulate with whats wrong around them, so they just accept it. Then the women who are aware that something is wrong but will never take responsibility until its too late and they "hit the wall".

A lot of traditional countries will eventually go down the same path, by the sounds of it Poland already has done and I'm sure the rest will follow, especially if they join the EU. I don't see Russia changing for a while, although it will catch on and thirsty guys will go over there and probably change the dynamics, much like a virus.

Although I doubt the rest of the world will get as bad the protestant countries have in the Anglosphere, there still is going to be a big cost. With technology improving, I can see the effects of such actions, constantly being delayed. Men are horny and desperate for feminine affection, doesn't matter, here is a playboy virtual sex stimulator.

I look around where I am currently living (London, I should probably change my flag) and some days, I think to myself "This is all going to collapse any day now", other times I think the opposite, that this way of living for the ordinary person. May become sustainable due to technology, and the fact that there are still plenty of people who are able to form healthy relationships with each other, will just delay the process.


For the individual who reads up on the red pill, its fine, we can really exploit the situation and with enough effort, may be able to build something of our own. Having a cynical "just fuck it" attitude, is excellent after you get through the burn and start traveling, living by your own terms. But when 50% of the population doesn't have access to such vital information about their own nature, it puts a dent in the woodwork. Also this is incredibly anti social in the grand scheme of things, but then again the nature of our current civilisation is completely anti social from a humanist perspective.

I personally don't understand why a nation that increases its wealth, have to abandon traditional values. I don't even like to use the word "traditional" as if its something that belongs in the past. Its simply practical systems in place, to ensure people are in a healthier state to reach their full potential.


So the questions I am posing here.

- Will there be a collapse and if so when will it happen ?

- Will the rest of the world reject these "modern" cultural values ?

- In general what does the future hold ?

- How can some healthy natural order be reestablished, in a positive way ?


Peace

[Chaos]

"The world is full of Kings and Queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams."

[dog]

Good post, some quick thoughts before I gotta run to the gym:

Marxism has some interesting ideas, one among them the idea that human society and civilization progresses through stages and that these stages are inevitable. However, I think this is fundamentally incorrect and is almost the "intelligent design" model for civilization. If we take a natural selection model for civilization, I think it fits the pattern much better. Civilizations, like species, arise and go extinct. Some characteristics allow them to thrive in certain environments, other characteristics ensure their swift destruction. Like species, there is variation across civilizations, but there are also similarities that successful civilizations share between each other. Not only do successful civilizations share similarities, but similarities occur before the collapse of a formerly successful civilizations. Patterns emerge.

So is this a stage of evolution we must endure? In my opinion: no. There is no progressive step-by-step evolution of civilizations with some sort of end goal in sight. This is simply a certain type of civilization. Whether or not it will be successful is debatable.

One characteristic of long-lasting, "sustainable" civilizations is that they are not feminist. There is no historical evidence of successful feminist civilizations. There is some evidence that civilizations that have embraced parts of the modern feminist doctrine collapsed. I'm not sure if feminism is a cause or an effect of a collapsing civilization, but, if history is any indication, civilizations that embrace it go extinct.

[Saweeep]

Whatever happens it won't happen suddenly; nothing ever does really.

[AnonymousBosch]

(07-24-2014 03:22 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

Whatever happens it won't happen suddenly; nothing ever does really.

Germany:

1918 - Imperial State.

By 1919 - Revolution, Federal Democratic Republic.

1919-1923 - Default of Loans, Hyperinflation, French and Belgian Occupation of the Ruhr region, the German Worker's Party becomes the Nazi Party.

By 1924 - A Liberal Democracy and a period of cultural decadence which includes German women breaking with traditional mores of society and becoming what was considered 'Americanised': smoking, drinking and cutting their hair short. Idea that the German identity was being polluted by American Interests.

1930-1932 - Lapse and Collapse of Liberal Democracy, Effects Of The Great Depression Pass Through To Germany

By 1933 - Fascist State, Nationalism, Strong German Identity.

From King to Dictator in 15 years, with Economic Forces driving it.

Think about this: only two years ago, 'social justice' was a fringe element, and now it's the dominant discourse.

[TravelerKai]

(07-24-2014 09:13 AM)Chaos Wrote:  

"The world is full of Kings and Queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams."

These troubled times, turning knots in my muddled mind, The goldrush crush, left us in the rubble mine. We struggle and burn to earn a crust. The gluttonous have turned my dreams to dust! WHO CAN YOU TRUST!?

-MC Codebreaker on Flex FM Radio

[DaveR]

My theory is that the longer a place is without war (or a real threat of it), the more perverted society becomes.

[DaveR]

(07-24-2014 04:55 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Think about this: only two years ago, 'social justice' was a fringe element, and now it's the dominant discourse.

What does this mean, for those of us (I) who haven't live in the West or followed Western news for a long time?

Just to clarify... I haven't used English socially since before Facebook even existed. I used Facebook for about a week in 2009 or 2010, was 'befriended' by some of the women I previously considered attractive, which terrified me, and haven't been back since. So I am somewhat out of touch.

[TravelerKai]

(07-24-2014 05:38 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

My theory is that the longer a place is without war (or a real threat of it), the more perverted society becomes.

The only problem is that in an post atomic society, containment strategy takes place of conventional warfare. Police Actions by states and other actors, are the norm now. What is not well known or understood is how does decadence and decay affect hegemonic state actors. You can guess that the levels of obesity and birthrate/death rate replacement rate will eventually cause a hegemon to lose all it's hegemonic power and empire, simply because they will not be able to assert their authority upon lesser states. Does this mean, being a hegemon becomes a strange kind of musical chairs? US goes down, China takes up for a while, they go down, UK or Russia comes up for a while, etc. Or does this mean that no hegemon actually loses power but rather other hegemons come up making it crowded at the top. As long as resources do not run out, why fight each other when there is no real reason to do so?

As much as the US is decaying, no other states can realistically remove it's power as a hegemon. Even if you take away it's ability to make war conventionally, the large array of ICBMs are enough to prevent complete take over from another state.

How realistic is a second civil war scenario?

[DaveR]

(07-24-2014 05:54 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 05:38 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

My theory is that the longer a place is without war (or a real threat of it), the more perverted society becomes.

The only problem is that in an post atomic society, containment strategy takes place of conventional warfare. Police Actions by states and other actors, are the norm now. What is not well known or understood is how does decadence and decay affect hegemonic state actors. You can guess that the levels of obesity and birthrate/death rate replacement rate will eventually cause a hegemon to lose all it's hegemonic power and empire, simply because they will not be able to assert their authority upon lesser states. Does this mean, being a hegemon becomes a strange kind of musical chairs? US goes down, China takes up for a while, they go down, UK or Russia comes up for a while, etc. Or does this mean that no hegemon actually loses power but rather other hegemons come up making it crowded at the top. As long as resources do not run out, why fight each other when there is no real reason to do so?

As much as the US is decaying, no other states can realistically remove it's power as a hegemon. Even if you take away it's ability to make war conventionally, the large array of ICBMs are enough to prevent complete take over from another state.

How realistic is a second civil war scenario?

The US is quite an exception because it is essentially an island but yet is still able to project its power. In the past it has benefited from immigration due to conflicts in other regions, but now the policies appear to be quite strict. That may be why society there is falling apart so quickly - women, homosexuals and other minorities control the discourse within the sandpit, and there is no way around it other than to leave. Where as in the past, there was always a supply of women who held themselves to traditional values and men who were capable and not easily swayed by 'modern' ideas.

In Europe, I don't think there will be war in the form that it has been in the past. However, there are some situations where I would expect to see conflicts within existing borders:
- areas with mixed populations (eg. Russians vs. Estonians/Lithuanians/Latvians)
- religious conflict (Islam vs. Christian-based values in the Netherlands and the UK)
- breakaway regions (Scotland, Wales, Basque, Catalonia, Bavaria, etc.)
- uprisings based on differences in ideology (eg. Occupy Wall Street in the US)

[Constitution45]

I predict you will being to see empires forming, North American Alliance, E.U (whether in its current form or in a new one), China, A.U and Mostly like a Russian/Asian alliance. I believe we will see protectionist economic policies being brought back, once the benefits of Neo liberalism have been taken by the developing power spheres. This will cause the U.S to become further isolationist and bitter.

As for feminism and matriarchies, well they never taken off before and never will in the future either. Hypergamy unchecked, simply doesn't work. Sex is a powerful incentive and force for good when it is restrained, while being channelled in the right direction. If this doesn't take place, you then start to see the rules of the jungle being applied and a distancing between people and their own natures.

Gradually in Europe you are having resistance groups forming and people who are pro actively having enough of this political correct culture. Interesting to observe however, is how muslim groups are rejecting such drives to introduce homosexuality and other elements of the lGBT community along with feminism. The left doesn't bother with highlighting this although it will lead to serious problems for them in the future. Essentially a patriarchy of one way or the other will take over a decaying matriarchy, especially in the globalised world we are living in.

[Fighting888]

One factor in the decline of society is the decline in male employment and wage prospects.

In America, wages/employment for male workers peaked back in the late 1970s and have been declining
ever since. Immigration, globalization, mechanization/robotics, computers, financialization, and outsourcing have
hammered American male workers.

When men were breadwinners, women respected them. Now that men are economically languishing, as female employment/wage prospects have increased, women don't really see the need for a provider anymore.

In the future, men will see even worse economic prospects due to the factors I listed above.

[TravelerKai]

(07-24-2014 06:14 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 05:54 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 05:38 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

My theory is that the longer a place is without war (or a real threat of it), the more perverted society becomes.

The only problem is that in an post atomic society, containment strategy takes place of conventional warfare. Police Actions by states and other actors, are the norm now. What is not well known or understood is how does decadence and decay affect hegemonic state actors. You can guess that the levels of obesity and birthrate/death rate replacement rate will eventually cause a hegemon to lose all it's hegemonic power and empire, simply because they will not be able to assert their authority upon lesser states. Does this mean, being a hegemon becomes a strange kind of musical chairs? US goes down, China takes up for a while, they go down, UK or Russia comes up for a while, etc. Or does this mean that no hegemon actually loses power but rather other hegemons come up making it crowded at the top. As long as resources do not run out, why fight each other when there is no real reason to do so?

As much as the US is decaying, no other states can realistically remove it's power as a hegemon. Even if you take away it's ability to make war conventionally, the large array of ICBMs are enough to prevent complete take over from another state.

How realistic is a second civil war scenario?

The US is quite an exception because it is essentially an island but yet is still able to project its power. In the past it has benefited from immigration due to conflicts in other regions, but now the policies appear to be quite strict. That may be why society there is falling apart so quickly - women, homosexuals and other minorities control the discourse within the sandpit, and there is no way around it other than to leave. Where as in the past, there was always a supply of women who held themselves to traditional values and men who were capable and not easily swayed by 'modern' ideas.

In Europe, I don't think there will be war in the form that it has been in the past. However, there are some situations where I would expect to see conflicts within existing borders:
- areas with mixed populations (eg. Russians vs. Estonians/Lithuanians/Latvians)
- religious conflict (Islam vs. Christian-based values in the Netherlands and the UK)
- breakaway regions (Scotland, Wales, Basque, Catalonia, Bavaria, etc.)
- uprisings based on differences in ideology (eg. Occupy Wall Street in the US)

All those conflicts are just mere police actions by state actors (namely Russia). Russia is a hegemonic power. Some might argue against me, but I say they are because of their ICBM capabilities, not being on an island doesn't matter. Russia can create a war machine if it ever needed to and is more ready to fight or defend than most give them credit for. Neither the US nor Russia can go broke keeping ICBMs. The infrastructure supporting all of this hardware alone, is valuable enough to keep the country from being unable to financially support it. Countries like the US and Russia cannot technically go broke. These assets, while not liquid, are not going anywhere and are worth lots of money. Oil is not scarce and may not ever go scarce.

Internal collapse in the US might look something like the USSR's collapse. Which was not very much of a collapse to begin with in the big picture. Just turned into a massive internal re-org project. Difference is that they had a culture homogeneous enough in terms of values, to pull it off, and had no real decadence or cultural dysfunction to speak of outside of basic govt. corruption. Can the US do that? Rome is the closest example of a large hegemon with decadence to fail, but that was in the pre-atomic age. Those exact same conditions cannot apply to the US in any way shape or form. Even if the US allowed more immigration eventually immigrants assimilate to their environment and realize having children here is too expensive and only have maybe 1-2 at best. Hedonism is encourage and not discouraged. Some Mexicans have moved back to Mexico because life in the US is too stressful. What's left? The desperate ones from Central America, China, and Africa? That could buy time for 50 years possibly, but endgame it's still the same result.

People = power hence the word manpower. Look at China for example, they are high on the hog now, but 1 child policy is going to leave them with a huge worker retiree gap like Japan. They are trying to do something about it now and it will work out in the end. America has so much freedom in every area that it will cause it to fail to replace their deaths with quality workers that can contribute to it's hegemony.

[Saweeep]

(07-24-2014 04:55 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 03:22 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

Whatever happens it won't happen suddenly; nothing ever does really.

Germany:

1918 - Imperial State.

By 1919 - Revolution, Federal Democratic Republic.

1919-1923 - Default of Loans, Hyperinflation, French and Belgian Occupation of the Ruhr region, the German Worker's Party becomes the Nazi Party.

By 1924 - A Liberal Democracy and a period of cultural decadence which includes German women breaking with traditional mores of society and becoming what was considered 'Americanised': smoking, drinking and cutting their hair short. Idea that the German identity was being polluted by American Interests.

1930-1932 - Lapse and Collapse of Liberal Democracy, Effects Of The Great Depression Pass Through To Germany

By 1933 - Fascist State, Nationalism, Strong German Identity.

From King to Dictator in 15 years, with Economic Forces driving it.

Think about this: only two years ago, 'social justice' was a fringe element, and now it's the dominant discourse.

I think that time period is too short to be honest. You need to back much further to find the seeds.

[The Beast1]

I honestly think the US would slip into a similar tyrannical police state for at least 5-10 years. Maybe a coup? Too much power and too many actors to let a re-org occur.

[Fighting888]

Do you guys ever foresee a collapse in our currency (the dollar)?

If that should ever happen, America will be truly screwed.

[Brodiaga]

People are stupider than we give them credit for. Not only in the US, everywhere. Men, and productive people in general, will keep taking it up the ass. It will only get worse. Maybe it will get better at some point, but by the time it does I'll either be dead or an old fuck and my dick won't work. I'll just enjoy the decline. The US is good for making money and fucking bitches (occasionally), but at some point i'll become invisible to bitches. The end game for me is making enough money to be able to move to some shithole in SEA and keep fucking until my dick stops working. After that, fuck it, time to take it easy and slowly die.

Edit: fuck, I'm drunk, should have posted it in drunk lounge

[El Chinito loco]

The bad thing about living in the current era is that when major powers collapse it won't just be a regional thing. It will likely involve nuclear exchange when that power becomes more desperate in maintaining dominance. The U.S. decline is in the works but there will likely be a significant war that isn't against poor dirt farmers between that time and now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_transition_theory

Quote:

An even distribution of political, economic, and military capabilities between contending groups of states is likely to increase the probability of war; peace is preserved best when there is an imbalance of national capabilities between disadvantaged and advantaged nations; the aggressor will come from a small group of dissatisfied strong countries; and it is the weaker, rather than the stronger; power that is most likely to be the aggressor.

We see this playing out right now with Russia and China chiseling away at U.S. regional hegemony.

(07-24-2014 05:54 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

As much as the US is decaying, no other states can realistically remove it's power as a hegemon. Even if you take away it's ability to make war conventionally, the large array of ICBMs are enough to prevent complete take over from another state.

You're right in saying that even after a large scale nuclear war the U.S. would likely survive. The problem is that any challenging power(s) also know that. Which means they won't settle for anything less than an overwhelming swarm of MIRVS launched onto America's largest cities.

Just an attempt at toppling the U.S./anglo global order could still definitively end the era of U.S. dominance even if there was a working government and some people left. It would also end the powers who tried to go up against the U.S. too. So it would be the worst MAD scenario realized.

What would be left in that vacuum? Maybe the world would see the re(rise) of some European country? Or would we descend back into a regressive era where it's mostly individual nations and city-states scrambling for control along their immediate borders.

It's really not a pretty possibility.

[Sp5]

Absent nuclear war, which is always a possibility through accident or malice, things will change more based on technology and markets than formal politics. The politics will always be running to catch up.

Markets and technology are driving globalism, which subordinates national politics.

You can't underestimate the possible effect of superintelligent machines or bioengineering.

Globalism could have a perverse effect of driving more localism, as people see the governments of their large countries are useless in protecting them from the effects of these economic and technological changes.

The USA's not finished, because it's the best-structured for this new world, with decentralized government, open market and cultural freedom, but it will be stressed by loss of dollar primacy. It needs to stay home for awhile and fix its own problems.

[Redwood]

I do believe that somehow, someway the collapse is pretty imminent, and we won't be alive to see it happen before our eyes. It takes many years, decades even, for it to commence.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

While the idea is as scary as it is tantalizing, I don't believe that this bizzaro storm of social justice movements can ever conquer nations or worlds like dictatorships conquered democracies and monarchies (as Bosch described). Why?

The main reason is not just that these new ideologies are unsustainable, but that they acutely make people miserable by parasitizing on them from the very beginning. For all of its horrors and inevitable collapse, the rise of the dictatorship in war-torn and impoverished Germany did solve some problems and make its citizens happier. I don't see that with feminism. I would be hard pressed to see one feminist-driven development that has made people more prosperous and satisfied (if in a shortsighted way with lots of hidden negatives). Instead, all of its effects are just plain negatives, enabled only by piggybacking onto other ideologies.

However, while I was writing this, a thought occurred to me that 60-s and 70-s might represent the "upward" part of feminism. After all, plenty of people (including older forum members) talk with nostalgia of the age of abundant-but-not-destructive sexual freedom. And if that's really the case, then an even worse turn is just around the corner.

[It_is_my_time]

I will try to keep this short....

IMO, it is all a goal of the wealthy elites across the world to end nationality and have a one world govt. for the entire world with them at the helm.

When you look at wealthy and powerful people in human history, they always are hungry for more. Their drive and greed both pushed them to be wealthy, but also prevented them from enjoying that wealth.

For them to do this, they must first rid the world of the idea of nations. The US open border is a great example of this. The huge surge of immigration into Europe.

They must also help spread the wealth world wide so that people in the poorer countries happily buy into this. They get free stuff from people they don't know, what is to not like about this.

They must remove our freedoms and help stop the over population of the earth. Feminism and liberalism is a great partner in this fight.

That is my best guess at least. A "collapse" will not be a Mad Max like scenario, instead it will just mean those of us in the western world will learn to live with less and have little to no way to improve our lives or our situation.

[Glaucon]

Feudal times will come back. The middle-class will be no more. There will be only rich, and poor.

Welcome to the second dark age.

[Sonsowey]

I doubt the USA is going to "collapse" into an actual civil war or anything like that, or that our government will fail and there will be a revolution any time soon.

It seems more like a slow decline. Wages have been slowly dropping since the 1970s, life span is actually dropping, obesity is on the rise and somehow still increasing, families are falling apart, we imprison a greater proportion of our countrymen than any other society in the world. It's no mystery what the decline will look like, just look around you. Whatever problems we have will probably just become worse over time.

[The Beast1]

It's going to get bad before it gets better. The dollar will lose its reserve status soon and the day of reckoning will occur for the welfare/warfare state. It'll come quick.

I wouldn't be surprised if we temporarily see a hyper inflation situation that the fed has to squash by jacking up interest rates and forcing the banks to buy those bonds and MBSs. It will be scary for a few days, but control will be held albeit with a slightly tyrannical bent.

It'll take some time, but the US is a magnificent country with some really clever folk. Like the phoenix, we shall rise again.