The Cultural Collapse Theory

[Fiver]

"boys are medicated with ADHD meds to reduce masculinity." - no, they're medicated because pharmaceutical companies make money.

Agreed. But maybe Big Pharma is in bed with political groups to achieve both?

"native culture blah blah blah" there is no such thing as native culture, all explained by one of the posters above.

I'm not sure how you can argue with this. Have you not heard about the immigration problems that Western Europe is experiencing right now and how these groups won't assimilate to the host country's laws or culture?

"american culture is eroding as the culture focuses on trends, celebrities, feminism, and homosexuality." no it isn't, and nobody forces you to "focus" on celebrities, feminism, and homosexual. the fact that the author focuses on these topics goes to show that he is a celebrity-wannabe, feminine homo.

We are growing dumber by the minute. Celebrities, technology, and pop stars are all that's talked about on TV. Feminism being promoted right and left. It's not the same country I grew up in. Maybe you just need a longer perspective in which to judge these things. If I was in my 20s right now, I might not see the changes either.

 

[emp]

So .. Fiver wants a detailed response?

He'll get one, now that I am sitting here, early in the morning, grumpy as fuck, because .. well, mornings and reasons.

Sooo.. here go the criticisms.

I - Basic premise

The basic premise is that a) "cultural collapse" is coming and b) that it is a bad thing. I'll come back to it later, but history is littered with "collapsed" cultures that we are better off without.

II Definition of culture
Defining what constitutes a "culture" and what amount of change "destroys" it might just be beyond the realm of the feasable - So what is collapsing?

From what I read in this article, it is not the fall of the western civilization that is at stake, but the author bemoans:

a) The fall of the "macho man" able to do anything without regards to womanfolk, ruler of the household, sole patriarch, bread earner for his family of five (He does mention a family of five in Thailand as an ideal "escape")

b) The change in culture because of these FOREIGNERS! Dirty rotten scum, everyone should keep in their country, and especially far away from the white master race.

So.. let's look at the rest of the drivel, point by point. His "progression of the cultural collapse" --> Fall of some western states

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”

Religion = good, science and technology BAAAAAD!
Sorry, but I am not even going to honor this with a response.

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.

Traditional sex roles would have to be defined here, which of course the author fails to do. I guess Women= subservient housemaids and bearer of children, men = superior bread winners and rulers

He then lists a variety of agencies, of which half have nothing to do with killing off that antiquated view of which he is so fond.
Neither Marxism, nor Socialism have shit to do with that.

To make it clear at this point:
I actually think that a lot of the "modern" feminists are going way overboard. I have nothing against a good set of rights for women, though.
Get your head out of your ass - you want to go back to "women should not work, drive, vote, etc..."?

3. Delay or abstainment of family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.

Ah- nice...here we have it spelled out. The purpose in life (for women, at least) should be to have a family.
Because some women decide to have a career instead, the poor emasculated men wait in "confused limbo" until they can procreate.

If you want a family, find a woman who wants one, too. Done.

4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.

It can actually be shown that the birth rate declines as soon as it is ensured that kids survive. (Yes, even in traditional societies.. such as Egypt and Tunisia) Basically, people used to have 7 kids because only 2 would survive. Modern medicine helps us throw off that burden and only have as many kids as we want.

5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.

As far as I see it (Switzerland), immigration is getting more rigidly controlled over the last years.
The last time Germany imported a LOT of guest workers was in the 70s.

6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.

Again, no. Come to Switzerland. The percentage of foreigners living here (25%) is staggering, but yeah.. the culture is doing quite well.
You also need to differentiate immigrants from immigrants here.
Islamic (well, fundamentalist islamic) immigrants are often slow to acclimate. This is often not the cased with their kids.

Also, there is quite some research that shows that intra-cultural differences are often bigger than inter-cultural differences.
To make this easier to understand: Members of the same subculture from different cultures are closer together than subcultures in the same culture.
Or:
A German banker will find it easier to speak to a Turkish banker than to a German punk rocker.

7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.

Sorry, racist fear mongering. He completely gives up citing any sources here, as well.

That enough?

TL;DR
The guy is a basement dwelling neckbeard who got rejected by the hot Muslima next door.
He then sat down in front of his computer and started hashing out a nice conspiracy theory.

Edit:
I forgot to list at least one culture that had all his "desirable" qualities, but we might be off better without it:
Nazi Germany - There, I said it.

Subservient women - check
Women should be mothers - check, there was even a MEDAL awarded for having lots of kids --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honour_of_the_German_Mother
Less immigrants - check
Political correctness? Marxism? Gender equality? - All out, yay!

Idiot.

::emp::

 

[Island]

^At the same time though, is it really good that certain cultures "collapse"?

I mean think about the fall of the Roman Empire and the dark ages that followed in Europe? If that did not happen how would the world be different now?

I'm not saying that's going to happen again... but still its something to think about.

Btw I'm an immigrant... I believe immigrants should integrate into their host country. I also believe the host country should let in immigrants that bring some sort of value.

Also, about the whole women putting off familes thing... you can't deny that feminist and mainstream indoctrination is absolutely retarded. All these women think that they can find a guy in their mid to late 30s and then have kids. Even though at that age its much riskier to have a kid. Whether it leads to cultural collapse or not is debatable but its still laughably delusional.

 

[mituozo]

I'm not sure how you can argue with this. Have you not heard about the immigration problems that Western Europe is experiencing right now and how these groups won't assimilate to the host country's laws or culture?

Do you live in Western Europe? Do you see more than the media's fine lens on what goes on over here?

I can't tell you the last time I had a problem with an immigrant who who wouldn't assimilate to our culture. The vast majority of immigrants I know and have met are hard working people, that adapt to our culture.

These are the guys coming to our country and often doing the shit that our own native population is "above doing".

Yes cultural problems do emerge, yes some immigrants are bad people and do damage, yes some sponge on benefits, yes some shoot up shops and kill people, but it's nothing like what you see on the news.

If things were as bad as you say they are, wouldn't violent crime be going up year-on-year as the "evil immigrants" come into the country and destroy everything?

We are growing dumber by the minute. Celebrities, technology, and pop stars are all that's talked about on TV. Feminism being promoted right and left. It's not the same country I grew up in. Maybe you just need a longer perspective in which to judge these things. If I was in my 20s right now, I might not see the changes either.

Growing dumber? Please provide me with some study that objectively highlights that any western country is getting "dumber" beyond hyperbole.

More people spend more time in education. We have access to all the world's information at our finger tips, and if anything people are more intelligent and aware of the world than they ever were.

Whilst the media still has a grip on the world, reason is more frequently pervaying than it used to. It's harder to feed the world bullshit when everyone has a platform they can shout from. The media landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented. Just take a look at the average UK youth's opinion on the Daily Mail. Lots of "old media" only has a hold because of the older generations who consume information in the same way they always have.

All of the arguments in posts like this stem down to "the past was better". You just hate change, and look on the past in rose tinted glasses.

 

[emp]

@Island .. The Roman Empire ... seriously?

Slavery, killing people for sports, bringing war to the known world?

Thanks,
I'll pass.

::emp::

 

[momchil9]

I can't believe so many people read past

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”

 

[GimpSpack]

Whether he's full of shit or not, I cannot say. What I can say is that he seems to be a Neo-Luddite who uses metaphors like "treadmill of technological and scientific progress," which suggests that there is something stable about progress. He makes no account for the randomness of things. He sees a straight line from Eden to Armageddon and is essentially delivering a prelapserian fallacy.

Such an Eden never existed.

I'm going to skip "progress." It's an empty buzzword, and I suspect the author knows as much. What they call "progress," I call calculated social engineering.

As far as Eden, I don't think the author was in any way trying to paint the past as "perfect."

But c'mon. Unless you're a complete relativist, you can't deny that many recent cultural trends are resulting in objectively negative consequences.

For the majority of human history, men and women have had distinctly separate roles. Men provide. Women maintain the "nest" and raise children. I'm not assigning any value to this fact. But it is a fact. In recent times, we can see how the modern feminist movement (in conjunction with other well-timed cultural shifts) have upset this balance. The results?

1. An out of control divorce rate. Government has stepped in to replace the husband as the provider of resources. Women are free to leave their husbands (whether justified or not), and have government assistance at their finger tips (at the expense of tax payer dollars). The alternative? One-sided alimony/child-support rulings. One-sided child custody rulings. The State has effectively replaced the father. In some instances, this can be beneficial in the short-term. In most cases, it's destructive to the family unit.

2. Statistically, children of single-parent households (especially single mother households) are far more likely to become delinquents, criminals, drug abusers, etc.

3. The feminist push to encourage women to become career focused has put family obligations at odds with economic advancement. With both parents working full-time, the State becomes the primary caregiver of children.

As far as the "randomness" of things, I suggest you make a better effort at separating cultural anomalies and their passive byproducts from socially engineered movements. Research the link between the CIA and the feminist movement. Not everything is as "random" as you might expect.

He also talks as if "culture" was ever a stable thing. This is simply not possible. For one thing, each culture is made up of sub-cultures and they are constantly shifting and evolving and mixing with other things. This will continue to do so, building up some social elements that will be stable for a time (Myspace) and then will eventually dissipate (Myspace) before eventually disappearing altogether (please, Myspace, why do I keep bumping into you!)

I agree. Culture is flimsy. I'm not a big fan of culture for this reason, period. Unless it's rooted in rationality, reason, and empathy, I say "SKIP IT!"

But there's certain elements of human nature that transcend the transient memes of culture.

For instance: It's impossible for human beings to escape operating within the confines of social hierarchy.

Likewise, it's impossible to completely bypass the biological protocols each gender must adhere to (without artificial interference). You can bend gender roles to a certain degree (via social engineering/conditioning), but it will never completely override our prevailing biological compulsions.

The whole idea of a "native population" should also be deeply criticized. There never was such a thing on the planet, not even when we were orangutangs - and humans evolved in the first place due to the impossibility of a native population.

Yup. 100%.

 

[ard555]

We are definitely in a post-collapse world. Anyone who disagrees has clearly never marched with me in a gay pride parade.

It can't collapse if it hasn't been built. And Gay Pride parades, as cool as they are, demonstrate that the world has always been in chaos, including the social structures that try to form within it.

 

[ard555]

Sorry for the double post. Machine said I have only 10 minutes to edit a post. Apropos self-directed human evolution discussed below. Long live Newspeak and character limits.

As far as Eden, I don't think the author was in any way trying to paint the past as "perfect."

But c'mon. Unless you're a complete relativist, you can't deny that many recent cultural trends are resulting in objectively negative consequences.

For the majority of human history, men and women have had distinctly separate roles. Men provide. Women maintain the "nest" and raise children. I'm not assigning any value to this fact. But it is a fact. In recent times, we can see how the modern feminist movement (in conjunction with other well-timed cultural shifts) have upset this balance. The results?

I'm not saying he's trying to paint the past as perfect. He's trying to paint it as better. The truth is that the human species has never had it better than now for many reasons.

As for "the majority of human history," you'll need to define what counts as "human," because gender roles were either even or in some cases reversed for most of human history. We mustn't mistake the approximately 2000 years of speculative knowledge we have about the past-pre Ancient Egypt up until now for "most of human history" because it isn't.

I think too that the "balance" to which you are referring is the true nest, a myth built from the twigs of the 1950s American television and movies that disguised what was really going in American households in the popular imagination.

As for escaping social hierarchy and overriding our biology, you're right, but possibly not for long.

Or maybe I'm just too much a fan of the best of David Cronenberg's Sci-fi horror movies and the novels of J.G. Ballard. Even so, humans are clearly directing their own evolution at a very intense scale, hierarchies still exist but are constantly being flipped and people are actively overriding their biology.

And on the final point, they always have, either to themselves or others. Genital mutilation/castrations forced upon individuals by others in the first instance, self-castration, piercings, extreme tattoos, an increase in the acceptance of homosexuality (along with the homo-sexualization of Western Civ overall where even on this board there are constant outbursts of repressed sexuality - keep 'em cumming) by the latter. Humans are and have always been at war with their bodies and more and more they are winning.

Kind of a beautiful thing given that "human," as such, doesn't really exist. "Abnormal" by Michel Foucault is recommended reading in this regard. "Human" is an 18th Century Enlightenment invention designed to serve certain social power structures (both church and government benefit from marriage, for example, which is a completely unnatural state that goes against much of - thought not all of - human biology). And the more people believe, the more they obey (or appear to obey, as in the images built in the 1950s to perpetrate a particular image of a "normal," "balanced" society.

... transmission ... out ...

 

[insectlife]

So "cultural collapse theory" is basically Postmodernism/structuralism? Groundbreaking.

 

[emp]

Wow... actually... marriage / divorce

File:Marriage and Divorce Rates in the US 1990-2007.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since 1990, we actually have about 50% of marriages being divorced.
There is also less people getting married.

But.. the rate of divorced marriages is pretty much stable for 24 years.

How is that a cultural collapse?

::emp::

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

A few points that seem to have been missed (or skipped) in this back and forth:

One-sided alimony/child-support rulings. One-sided child custody rulings. The State has effectively replaced the father. In some instances, this can be beneficial in the short-term. In most cases, it's destructive to the family unit.

Statistically, children of single-parent households (especially single mother households) are far more likely to become delinquents, criminals, drug abusers, etc.

The feminist push to encourage women to become career focused has put family obligations at odds with economic advancement. With both parents working full-time, the State becomes the primary caregiver of children.

Research the link between the CIA and the feminist movement. Not everything is as "random" as you might expect.

I hate to see great points like this ignored - any takers?

 

[emp]

Child custody

--> Divorce Statistics - How Is Child Custody Decided?

Simple as fuck, fathers don't WANT the kids. See those statistics? Only 33% of fathers even want their kids.

Comoared to 82% of the mothers.

As to where / how it is Regulated "OH NOES! THE BAD FEMINIST STATE CONSPIRACY!!!11ONE!!"

51% agreed on their own
29% settled without third party involvement

= 80%

Only 4% actually get regulated by a court.

Okay, that is point one.

Single parent households produce more delinquent kids

I actually did some research into this (no source given for the argument because ... well.. I guess thinking and sourcing is hard)

So I won't bother.

All the research I skimmed basically pointed to:

a) We don't have enough data /time / more research would be needed
b) Kinda has an effect, but we don't know (see a)
c) It is such a mix of factors, we are up shit creek.

Basically, the factors contributing to juvenile delinquency are --> Parental involvement / attention, financial stability

Yes, those are harder to provide for single parents, but it is possible / not all single parent household == delinquents.

Also, the link between juvenile and adult delinquency is highly debated

One example --> (pdf) http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/sampson/files/1990_asr_laub.pdf

Both parents working == bad

The rate of employed women might be less than you think, peaking at 70% in countries like Denmark (60.2% in the US)
Employment rate of women - Employment and Labour Markets: Key Tables from OECD - OECD iLibrary

Less than 50% of Mothers with kids under 6 (3rd column on) work fulltime.

Even with part time, that scratches the 70% mark only later.

--> Happy Mother?s Day from BLS: working mothers in 2012 : The Editor’s Desk : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Feminists are CIA agents that come to undermine our glrbledigoog

I am gonna ignore this conspiracy drivel.
Simply because the numbers look around the same in the Western modern world. So no CIA involvement necessary.

::emp::

 

[wiredniko]

I can't believe I am bothering to reply...

One-sided alimony/child-support rulings. One-sided child custody rulings. The State has effectively replaced the father. In some instances, this can be beneficial in the short-term. In most cases, it's destructive to the family unit.

OK, this is the one thing that feminists talking about patriarchy should explain better to others. I keep reading this from anti-feminists and it is obvious that they don't get it.

Here is the problem.

A system based on patriarchy says:
Man = display sexuality, has a family, supports them financially, tells the woman what to do
Woman = must listen to man, must make babies and get fucked whenever man wants (for babies of course), must cook, clean, mind her own business

So under a patriarchy system:

When a divorce takes place who should have the children? The woman
When a divorce takes place who should support the children and the wife? The man

What does this mean?

It means that in a divorce situation patriarchy backfires and the man loses his children and has to pay for it. This of course happens because the system itself says man must support children and woman must raise children.

Instead of being butt hurt that you got a divorce and have to pay for your kids and wife and blaming feminism you should blame patriarchy instead.

Statistically, children of single-parent households (especially single mother households) are far more likely to become delinquents, criminals, drug abusers, etc.

Will not debate this is accurate as far as I know. However this document https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327 talks about financial security and not having enough interaction with parents. So perhaps a solution would be that the father spends some more time and ensures financial security.

This is a complicated matter because this will get us in the women don't make as much money as men argument, along with fathers can't talk to their kids because of their moms argument which ultimately is all cyclical.

The feminist push to encourage women to become career focused has put family obligations at odds with economic advancement. With both parents working full-time, the State becomes the primary caregiver of children.

This seems like BS to me. How do you define "State becomes the primary caregiver of children". Is this a school reference, as in the schools raise our children? Elaborate and maybe I can respond.

Research the link between the CIA and the feminist movement. Not everything is as "random" as you might expect.

Tinfoil hat engaged.

 

[Antics]

Single parent households produce more delinquent kids

Even if there was a statistically significant correlation between the two I would bet both of my testicles that you would find those cohorts directly overlapping with low socioeconomic status.

Hur hur hur multiple variablez 2 hard 5 me (not directed at you)

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Child custody

--> Divorce Statistics - How Is Child Custody Decided?

Simple as fuck, fathers don't WANT the kids. See those statistics? Only 33% of fathers even want their kids.

Part of your misunderstanding of those numbers probably lies with an unfamiliarity of the US court system, and part of it is I just don't think you spent enough time looking at those numbers:

82% of mothers want sole possession of the child (because fuck what's best for little Jimmy amirite?)

35% of fathers think joint possession of the children is what's best, and 33% want sole possession. So your statement that "the fathers don't want the kids" - is just wrong. The very first line on the link you posted shows only 29% of fathers wanted the kids to go to the mother.

Mediation is a required step in most (all?) jurisdictions, and trials are very expensive so divorces will rarely make it to a trial. But the outcomes in both situations favor the mothers. 63% to 6% for sole custody by mother vs father in mediation and 44% to 11% if it goes to trial. In both circumstances the mother is significantly more likely to get the kids.

Single parent households produce more delinquent kids

I actually did some research into this (no source given for the argument because ... well.. I guess thinking and sourcing is hard)

I didn't think I needed to source something that isn't disputed by anybody, but here you go:

"The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families." Source

Yes, those are harder to provide for single parents, but it is possible / not all single parent household == delinquents.

The rate of employed women might be less than you think, peaking at 70% in countries like Denmark (60.2% in the US)
Employment rate of women - Employment and Labour Markets: Key Tables from OECD - OECD iLibrary

Less than 50% of Mothers with kids under 6 (3rd column on) work fulltime.

Even with part time, that scratches the 70% mark only later.

--> Happy Mother?s Day from BLS: working mothers in 2012 : The Editor’s Desk : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

That sorta goes back to the "government as the primary caregiver" argument though, doesn't it?

Feminists are CIA agents that come to undermine our glrbledigoog

I am gonna ignore this conspiracy drivel.

and:

Tinfoil hat engaged.

Is it a conspiracy when the queen feminist herself has admitted to CIA funding:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HRUEqyZ7p8"]Gloria Steinem Discussing Her Time in the CIA - YouTube[/ame]

And it's not just the leader of the US feminist movement either, CIA involvement in the feminist movement has been fairly well documented.

Here is the problem.

A system based on patriarchy says:
Man = display sexuality, has a family, supports them financially, tells the woman what to do
Woman = must listen to man, must make babies and get fucked whenever man wants (for babies of course), must cook, clean, mind her own business

So under a patriarchy system:

When a divorce takes place who should have the children? The woman
When a divorce takes place who should support the children and the wife? The man

What does this mean?

It means that in a divorce situation patriarchy backfires and the man loses his children and has to pay for it. This of course happens because the system itself says man must support children and woman must raise children.

Instead of being butt hurt that you got a divorce and have to pay for your kids and wife and blaming feminism you should blame patriarchy instead.

If the US were a patriarchy, I think your argument would make sense. But it's not.

This seems like BS to me. How do you define "State becomes the primary caregiver of children". Is this a school reference, as in the schools raise our children? Elaborate and maybe I can respond.

With the father out of the family, a significant number of single mothers begin to rely on the government for money and other subsidies. I don't think anybody would argue that point.

 

[bitfiend]

you wanna know how grub has $10k to blow on bad stock trades? Because he doesn't waste his time on shit like this. (not that i'm taking sides)

 

[Johnathan]

you wanna know how grub has $10k to blow on bad stock trades? Because he doesn't waste his time on shit like this. (not that i'm taking sides)

How the fuck are you going to bring Mcgrunin into this, get off his dick.

 

[Moxie]

I didn't think I needed to source something that isn't disputed by anybody,

It's not disputed, but like with anything, the question would be how much of a causation is it in and of itself.

It's also not disputed that violent households are more likely to produce criminal children. Well, it's also not disputed that divorce often leads to a more peaceful home life for children in comparison to before, even if those particular children might still end up with a less peaceful life than average.

Parent A divorces violent Parent B = Child more likely than average to be criminal
Parent A stays with violent Parent B = Child still more likely than average to be criminal



Percent of Children age 0-14 in Single-Parent Households, 2010 :

Homicide Rate

US = 4.8
UK = 1.2
Canada = 1.6

Mexico = 23.7


Canada’s 2012 homicide rate at lowest level in nearly 50 years






USA :

 

[Veritas]

I am never having kids, I need my monies for alcohol, cigar, strip clubs, and yeah food.