Civilization is based on monogamy.

If a man contributes to society, he shall get a woman and reproduce. Instead of fighting each other in a winner-takes-all death match (hypergamy), let's cooperate and share women equitably among ourselves (monogamy).

Women hate monogamy. Women don't want men cooperating, they want men fighting each other so that only the strongest, fittest, healthiest may breed them.

The only way for civilization to work is to go against the very instincts of women. Female sexuality needs to be strictly regulated. Women need to be forced to marry average guys, so that the social contract may be fulfilled and civilization may thrive.

Giving women freedom leads to hypergamy, which breaks the social contract of civilization.
Average men aren't given women by society, so they stop contributing to society and start competing on an individual level.

Societal institutions, which require cooperation, cannot function anymore. Civilization collapses.

>>510385878 (OP)
bump for saying something true which isn't allowed to be uttered in polite public life

we need sexual marxism (monogamy)

>>510385878 (OP)
More trve nvkes please.

>>510385878 (OP)
we will see about that

women took control of civilization a long time ago (at least the 60s) and society hasn't collapsed yet

as a matter of fact, unabomber types killed themselves or trooned out
now what?

>>510386802
>and society hasn't collapsed yet
Women do not "control" civilization because they are incapable of enacting the violence needed to control anything. Women are just parasites, leeching off of a previously thriving civilization to endlessly pursue their own self-indulgence. Enforced monogamy was a thing of the past, but we still have monogamy and the remnants of it supporting society. It's eroding, and over time it will erode faster and faster, but if you think that women's overall liberation would result in everything collapsing immediately then you're retarded. In the 60s we still had families, and the 70s, and even the 80s, though by that point they've been eroding and have been ever since.

Then we can be like Muslims, just enslave the women it worked out so well for the people living in mud hutts

>>510386802
No they didn't, their purpose is to drive men to greatness. Every nerd made the advancements he made to get laid or impress women. Even Nikola Tesla who died a virgin loved entertaining dumb bimbos and craved the attention. Letting women be whores literally encourages men to strive for greater accomplishments.

Literally everything you enjoy was made in the west where women were permitted to be giant whores if they wanted.

>>510388415
>only muslim societies had enforced monogamy
You're retarded. Civilizations exist because the lion's share of men have a practical guarantee to breed if they follow the social contract.
>work
>follow laws
>fight on command
If you take away their family, why would they work? At least not work any harder than to make their own individual ends meet. Why would they care as much about following laws? I suppose for their own safety and security, but a man that only has himself to think of will take more risks than a man tied to a family. And a man coming from a society that has provided him nothing will certainly not want to fight.

>>510386802
>society hasn't collapsed yet
do you know why no western government will ever publish the statistics on white fertility rates?

>>510388647
>I need women to be forced to marry me
Wrong. Accomplish something.

>>510386516
Your wish is my command.

>>510385878 (OP)
This is exactly why the first order of business when setting up a functional society is heavily restricting women's rights. When women are free to do as they please they destroy everything around them in an attempt to find the strongest man to open their legs to until they get bored of that and go off in search of an even stronger man who doesn't even exist. China is actually starting to pass laws and cracking down on its women in an effort to restore order in a time of total chaos for the west. They'll surpass the west by the end of the decade if they keep at it, especially while we continue to slide further backwards thanks to female degeneracy.

>>510388647
the problem with muslim society is they were polygamous
excess men cause trouble

>>510388859
Do you think that everyone that has bred or had sex was some revolutionary genius that threw mankind 500 years into the future? The only reason these geniuses were able to thrive was because there was an enormous civilization around them that allowed them the luxury of free time to think.
Dirt farmers need a reason to farm dirt. Peasants need a reason to care. Soldiers need something back home to protect. Everyone needs some skin in the game. Guess what? 99% of people that have bred were unremarkable people. You and I are unremarkable, and I'm sure our fathers, grandfathers, or somewhere far enough up the line held an unremarkable peasant-class man that bred. Here's essentially what you're telling the 75-80% of men that are average, unremarkable dudes:
>you guys don't deserve shit and will die alone never even SEEING a pussy because you're NOT GOOD ENOUGH
>But please, PLEASE GOD PLEASE WORK AND FOLLOW LAWS AND KEEP CIVILIZATION RUNNING PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD KEEP THE LIGHTS ON AND THE WATER RUNNING FOR ME PLEASE but you're not getting anything loool but PLEASE RUN EVERYTHING AROUND ME FOR ME PLEASE

>>510389045
The problem with first world nations having declining birth rates is never that too much wealth leads to less incentive to repopulate, that's complete nonsense and goes against all logic and biology. The problem with first world nations is that once they get wealthy enough the men get so comfortable that they start easing up restrictions on women and they immediately turn to degeneracy and "keeping their options open" (read: slutting around) until they're too old to reproduce.

>>510389173
Very, very few muslims are actually polygamous because the only ones that are are the ones that can actually support and sustain it, i.e. the upper classes. Only like 10% of them are. I agree that this still causes problems though.

>>510388859
And you know what to add onto this, if we're under the belief that "only the best men should breed", then it's not going to be determined by "who is the smartest or accomplishes the most within the confines of civilized society", it's decided by me fighting you to the death and whoever wins gets to take the women by force. Is this the society you prefer? Men killing each other left and right to determine who is "fit" to breed? Or would you rather normal men just get a woman so they can prop up the society that actually allows geniuses to flourish? A genius wouldn't accomplish shit if he was busy building his own house, growing his own crops, raising his own animals, carrying pails of water, and didn't have the security society provides to protect him from aggressors.

>>510385878 (OP)
Let's simplify this even more.

Government and family are contradictory to each other. As government (and business, which is just privatized government) grows, family wanes. The original tribe was a family, not a government. So, the transition was from all family no government to nuclear family and mostly government. If we go further than that, we get to atomized individuals and all government, but this has never led to sustainable birth rates, so society just collapses before that totalitarian endpoint.

This also means that we are not headed in the direction of matriarchy. The original tribes were matriarchal, but this was only a matter of "mother right" (women raised their children, and children were viewed to have come from their mother's house). Patriarchal just means that the children are raised in the house of the father, and are viewed to come from the father primarily (taking a father's name for their surname). The original tribe divided reproductive groups by mother so that genetic diversity was high enough. The men may still lead hunting and war parties.

Feminism confuses power (government, business, wealth) with reproductive rights because it falsely assumes you can have both in favor of women. That has never happened. Casual sex without women living in group harems (how they did it in tribal days) just doesn't work.

Read the book by Lewis H. Morgan.

>>510389085
she was a dyke

they interiorize the sexist quality of their dads and try their hardest to be one of the boys