Or a cooperative patriarchy where women's sexuality is controlled with them obligated to pair-off and have children with "beta" (or at least non-top men) men in their fertile years. And with ordered roles for both sexes of course (even non-state societies have gender roles).
This was the arrangement in Athens, Rome, and Britain in their peaks. Not doing so gets you select mud societies like in the Philipines or Africa, which are only around at the mercy of their neighbors (who are much more controlling of their women) and are pits overall.
Why should I work to provide men who cannot compete in a free sexual market with access to procreation?
>>132945037
>lolbertarian
How are the hordes of beaners and Achmeds working out?
>>132945199
>How are the hordes of beaners and Achmeds working out?
Probably about as well as a horde of average beta offspring.
We're in the situation we're in because weak men are given a free pass to be weak. Making life better for them isn't going to help anything.
>>132945815
Go look up Athens (kept its women under control) VS Sparta (empowered women with the unsurprising demographic crisis).
Sharia law is too collectivist.
One of the reasons the west was responsible for the majority of world inventions and conquest has to do with the more individualistic mentality. This inhibits creativity.
All you need to do is to restrict immigration to the point it won't allow europeans to be replaced and also stimulate family values and social conservative ideals. You can easily do that without sharia. Just look at Europe and the US in the 19th century.
>>132947803
*estimulates creativity
>>132947803
>Just look at Europe and the US in the 19th century.
You mean the places that set the root of feminism?