More on: How women destroy civilisation

Joined
Mar 8, 2020
Messages
1,177
Reputation
506
Lel but really dude, how can you complain about women being whores if you want to sow your wilds oats and sleep with 100+ women and advise men to do the same, to get it out of their system. You know there's roughly the same amount of men and women rite? The analogy with society or hypocritical stuff with regards to consoomerism doesn't cut it I'm afraid, you want your cake and you want to eat it.

It's pretty similar to the cock carousel actually.

Ideal for both you might say:

Woman:

>spend 20s on cock carousel racking up a 50+ laycount
>at age 35-40 settle down with a well off 35 year old aging chad and make babies at fertility last chance saloon (and complain about it if you can't)

Men:

>Spend 20s and most of 30s slaying dem bitches
>Age 35-45 find a nice chaste 20-29 year old virgin wife unblemished by degeneracy (and complain about it if you can't)

Argument from nature doesn't cut it.

1592083895710.png
 
Last edited:

swaggyp1

Fan de Juanacita Valentina Restrepo Rubio
HQNP
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
Messages
8,836
Reputation
4,169
RealRob has been right about everything this whole time ..

except his opinion on video games destroying society
 
  • Legit
Reactions: Ryu

FalaimWas

Normie
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
1,187
Reputation
505
Chimp society is polygamous - dominant chimp gets all the women.
Human societies become monogamous - one man gets one wife, society progresses.
Feminists fight for "sexual liberation" - society becomes polygamous and begins to regress again.

I used to think polygamy was natural and best, because it's instinctual, but then I realised that it was holding back civilisation's progression.
:situation:
 

Kukushka

Ja! Ja! Ja!
Joined
Dec 24, 2019
Messages
1,227
Reputation
512
1. In nature some females are way stronger and bigger than males so they can enforce whatever they want. This is not the case for humans, where females are generally weaker and lower IQ than males. All what you see is happening just thanks to stoic benevolence and unrestricted liberalism.

2. Your grandma had 12 kids because she needed slave labor for the farm. It had nothing to do with generosity, it was, and in many countries still is, just pure economy.

Ancient Sparta had very loose sexual regulations but very strict eugenic rules. Thats development I would worry way more about in regards of unregulated sexual behaviour and easy access to abortion.



BTW not too long time ago the behaviour on the picture would result in severe beatings and prison time.
 

ullzzangincel

Lookism God
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
18,728
Reputation
4,773




"Sex and Culture" by J. D. Unwin is a remarkable book. The book analyzes 80 primitive cultures (anthropology) and a number of past empires (history) and finds that, without exception, the level of advancement or decline of all cultures is directly tied to the level of regulation of female sexuality. His historical examples include the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (600s - 900s), and English (1500s - 1900s). In every example, these cultures began to rise when women were required to be virgins at marriage and to be monogamous for life. All of these cultures began to decline when women were given rights, were not required to be virgins at marriage, when divorce was common, and marriage was in decline.


100% of societies that loosened constraints on female sexuality, opening Pandora’s box quickly degenerated and fell apart. Natural female instincts are destructive to civilization as the following happens :


▪ 20% of men enjoy 80% of female sexuality as the Pareto Principle returns (this fact also explains why harems are so prevalent in human societies cross-culturally and throughout history)


▪ A large population of disgruntled, sexually disenfranchised men forms
▪ Humanity returns to a zoistic level of development as men stop making investments in society
▪ Zoistic societies display the lowest amount of mental and social energy, therefore the civilization dies


Huxley put it like this:

"All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity."


Nikola Tesla knew what was coming as a result of this insanity.


"Our civilization will sink to a state like that which is found among the bees, ants and other insects–a state wherein the male is ruthlessly killed off. In this matriarchal empire which will be established the female rules. As the female predominates, the males are at her mercy. The male is considered important only as a factor in the general scheme of the continuity of life. The tendency of women to push aside man, supplanting the old spirit of cooperation with him in all the affairs of life, is very disappointing to me. Woman’s independence and her cleverness in obtaining what she wants in the business world is breaking down man’s spirit of independence. The old fire he once experienced at being able to achieve something that would compel and hold a woman’s devotion is turning to ashes. Women don’t seem to want that sort of thing to-day. They appear to want to control and govern. They want man to look up to them, instead of their looking up to him."




......

After studying cultures as diverse as the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and dozens of other groups Dr. Unwin found a 100% perfect correlation between the practice of heterosexual fidelity and cultural development. As Unwin wrote, across 5,000 years of history he found absolutely no exception his rule:

"These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.

Without exception, once restrictions on sexuality are lifted, especially female sexuality, a society destroys itself from within, and is later conquered from without. When not focusing mental and physical energy on buliding strong families, members of a culture lose the impetus for upkeep and innovation."





Author Daniel Janosik puts Unwin’s findings this way:

“If the British anthropologist J. D. Unwin is correct in his assessment of society, this present generation in the Western world may be the last one. He found that when strict heterosexual monogamy was practiced, the society attained its greatest cultural energy, especially in the arts, sciences and technology. But as people rebelled against the prohibitions placed upon them and demanded more sexual opportunities, there was a consequent loss of their creative energy, which resulted in the decline and eventual destruction of the civilization. Remarkably, he did not find any exception to this trend.”

The fact the world’s three major religions, which date back to the Bronze Age have been structured around the ideals of monogamy and sexual restraint for thousands of years should tell us something about tampering with the set and frame of civilization, then calling the resulting degeneracy “progress.”

Unwin concluded that the fabric that holds a society together is sexual in nature. When life–long heterosexual monogamous relationship is practiced, the focus is on the nurture of the family and energy is expended to protect, plan for, and build up the individual family unit. This extends to the entire society and produces a strong society focused on preserving the strength of the family. However, he found that when sexual opportunities opened the door to pre–marital, post–marital, and homosexual relationships, the social energy always dissipated as the individual focused more on self–gratification rather than societal good.”


Philip Yancey has this to say about it :

Unwin had no Christian convictions and applied no moral judgment: "I offer no opinion about rightness or wrongness." Nevertheless, he had to conclude, "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence."

“The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. … I know of no exceptions to these rules”.







Unwin’s research identified this attitude as a salient opinion in each of the preceding societies as well:

“…convinced that the cultural process is a progressive development and that our own culture is the most developed of all cultures, we assume that every change in our cultural condition is evidence of a higher cultural development.”

Bob Burkett over at ETHIKA POLITIKA has an article on him and notes Unwin is by no means alone in his assessment :

"Unwin is not alone in reaching many of the conclusions I expanded upon here; a number of respectable academics throughout history have complemented his work in various ways.

Margaret Mead, for example, was a key academic who backed the Sexual Revolution and published a book highlighting the supposedly consequence-free world of sexual liberation in “Coming of Age in Samoa” (a book in which participants in the ethnographic study later admitted to lying to Mead for fun, thus rendering her utopian world of sexual libertinism unrealistic.) Regardless of her support of the Sexual Revolution, Mead acknowledged that the
central role for a successful society was to “define appropriate roles for men.”

In a largely monogamous society, men could choose to marry or remain celibate. Those men who married become committed husbands, providing the greatest opportunity for raising well-adjusted children, who in turn perpetuate societal growth.

Economist Joseph Schumpeter similarly equated the success of capitalism to love of the family, for without family the male would have less incentive to sacrifice and save money out of love for his wife and children, and would probably spend his money on more pleasurable endeavors.

Other works supporting the one male, one female familial structure as the most stable in society are:

Carl Zimmerman, Family and Civilization

Robert Nisbet, This Present Age

Pitirim Sorokin (the founder of Harvard’s sociology department), The American Sex Revolution
@retiredmaxilla U criticize me for being a hypocrite and this guy blasts roids and fucks college sluts yet complains about liberal western values just jfl.
 

ullzzangincel

Lookism God
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
18,728
Reputation
4,773




"Sex and Culture" by J. D. Unwin is a remarkable book. The book analyzes 80 primitive cultures (anthropology) and a number of past empires (history) and finds that, without exception, the level of advancement or decline of all cultures is directly tied to the level of regulation of female sexuality. His historical examples include the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (600s - 900s), and English (1500s - 1900s). In every example, these cultures began to rise when women were required to be virgins at marriage and to be monogamous for life. All of these cultures began to decline when women were given rights, were not required to be virgins at marriage, when divorce was common, and marriage was in decline.


100% of societies that loosened constraints on female sexuality, opening Pandora’s box quickly degenerated and fell apart. Natural female instincts are destructive to civilization as the following happens :


▪ 20% of men enjoy 80% of female sexuality as the Pareto Principle returns (this fact also explains why harems are so prevalent in human societies cross-culturally and throughout history)


▪ A large population of disgruntled, sexually disenfranchised men forms
▪ Humanity returns to a zoistic level of development as men stop making investments in society
▪ Zoistic societies display the lowest amount of mental and social energy, therefore the civilization dies


Huxley put it like this:

"All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity."


Nikola Tesla knew what was coming as a result of this insanity.


"Our civilization will sink to a state like that which is found among the bees, ants and other insects–a state wherein the male is ruthlessly killed off. In this matriarchal empire which will be established the female rules. As the female predominates, the males are at her mercy. The male is considered important only as a factor in the general scheme of the continuity of life. The tendency of women to push aside man, supplanting the old spirit of cooperation with him in all the affairs of life, is very disappointing to me. Woman’s independence and her cleverness in obtaining what she wants in the business world is breaking down man’s spirit of independence. The old fire he once experienced at being able to achieve something that would compel and hold a woman’s devotion is turning to ashes. Women don’t seem to want that sort of thing to-day. They appear to want to control and govern. They want man to look up to them, instead of their looking up to him."




......

After studying cultures as diverse as the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and dozens of other groups Dr. Unwin found a 100% perfect correlation between the practice of heterosexual fidelity and cultural development. As Unwin wrote, across 5,000 years of history he found absolutely no exception his rule:

"These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.

Without exception, once restrictions on sexuality are lifted, especially female sexuality, a society destroys itself from within, and is later conquered from without. When not focusing mental and physical energy on buliding strong families, members of a culture lose the impetus for upkeep and innovation."





Author Daniel Janosik puts Unwin’s findings this way:

“If the British anthropologist J. D. Unwin is correct in his assessment of society, this present generation in the Western world may be the last one. He found that when strict heterosexual monogamy was practiced, the society attained its greatest cultural energy, especially in the arts, sciences and technology. But as people rebelled against the prohibitions placed upon them and demanded more sexual opportunities, there was a consequent loss of their creative energy, which resulted in the decline and eventual destruction of the civilization. Remarkably, he did not find any exception to this trend.”

The fact the world’s three major religions, which date back to the Bronze Age have been structured around the ideals of monogamy and sexual restraint for thousands of years should tell us something about tampering with the set and frame of civilization, then calling the resulting degeneracy “progress.”

Unwin concluded that the fabric that holds a society together is sexual in nature. When life–long heterosexual monogamous relationship is practiced, the focus is on the nurture of the family and energy is expended to protect, plan for, and build up the individual family unit. This extends to the entire society and produces a strong society focused on preserving the strength of the family. However, he found that when sexual opportunities opened the door to pre–marital, post–marital, and homosexual relationships, the social energy always dissipated as the individual focused more on self–gratification rather than societal good.”


Philip Yancey has this to say about it :

Unwin had no Christian convictions and applied no moral judgment: "I offer no opinion about rightness or wrongness." Nevertheless, he had to conclude, "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence."

“The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. … I know of no exceptions to these rules”.







Unwin’s research identified this attitude as a salient opinion in each of the preceding societies as well:

“…convinced that the cultural process is a progressive development and that our own culture is the most developed of all cultures, we assume that every change in our cultural condition is evidence of a higher cultural development.”

Bob Burkett over at ETHIKA POLITIKA has an article on him and notes Unwin is by no means alone in his assessment :

"Unwin is not alone in reaching many of the conclusions I expanded upon here; a number of respectable academics throughout history have complemented his work in various ways.

Margaret Mead, for example, was a key academic who backed the Sexual Revolution and published a book highlighting the supposedly consequence-free world of sexual liberation in “Coming of Age in Samoa” (a book in which participants in the ethnographic study later admitted to lying to Mead for fun, thus rendering her utopian world of sexual libertinism unrealistic.) Regardless of her support of the Sexual Revolution, Mead acknowledged that the
central role for a successful society was to “define appropriate roles for men.”

In a largely monogamous society, men could choose to marry or remain celibate. Those men who married become committed husbands, providing the greatest opportunity for raising well-adjusted children, who in turn perpetuate societal growth.

Economist Joseph Schumpeter similarly equated the success of capitalism to love of the family, for without family the male would have less incentive to sacrifice and save money out of love for his wife and children, and would probably spend his money on more pleasurable endeavors.

Other works supporting the one male, one female familial structure as the most stable in society are:

Carl Zimmerman, Family and Civilization

Robert Nisbet, This Present Age

Pitirim Sorokin (the founder of Harvard’s sociology department), The American Sex Revolution
western society will be destroyed from without by china and I support it. I for one wholeheartedly welcome the golden horde.

 
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
1,465
Reputation
957
slayur ramus growth. his ramus could cover half of berlin wall's length. he has more bone mass than the all generations of federal reserve jews combined. keep in mind he most likely had blue eyes, too.

another slayur:

 

elmoggerino

King of Chads
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
13,625
Reputation
5,561
From an eugenic position:

Of the 80/20 rule is not applied the children become weak disgraces full of diseases which should not have happened as only the best men should have fucked all the women.

Bei top 20 or die. This is my philosophy
Stupid argument, we are a generation away from advanced genetic engineering, isn't that better than follow the destructive natural evolution which requires thousands of years to pass in order to even notice any improvement?
 

LiveAndLearn

Normie
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
1,381
Reputation
219
You cant disagree with the facts of history.

It is interesting because im wondering how it applies on an individual level vs a societal level.

I know a 30 year old waiter guy that is extremely stupid, low T, short, heavily in debt and bad with money, psl 3/10; and he is running just be first game on a sexy, super smart, 23 year old, high value liberal girl.
What is the point in working hard and becoming a doctor or wealthy man if you can be a scrub with basic psychological tactics and have a loyal slut to fuck every night?

My high T makes me an animal that works hard 365 days/year. My goal is to mog everyone and get them to bend to my will. Any low T guys(majority) are getting screwed over by modern womens values.
 
Top