Feminism Responsible For The Fall Of Rome

This guy draws an interesting comparison between feminism in ancient Rome and present day America, and how the rise of feminism portends a civilization’s collapse. The parallels are chilling. Yeah, it’s Reddit, waddaya want from me? You think you’re gonna get this kind of cutting edge analysis in the New York Beta Times?

Unfortunately, feminism and future is an oxymoron (or fortunately, depending on your point-of-view), as it seems to be unsustainable on the long run.

Based on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries. This is why we have never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short spans at the end of the Roman empire and possibly a few other more ancient civilizations.

Reading the history of the Roman Empire brings such glaring similarities with our own civilization, it is as if human social dynamics are literally stuck in a cycle that repeats every couple thousand years (there were two matriarchical, extremely advanced civilizations: one at the end of the Roman empire, 2000 years ago, one possibly at the end of Babylon, 4000 years ago).

For those who enjoy history, here is a short recap of social changes in Rome, 2 millenia ago (most historians focus on military and political facts, but I find the social aspects just as fascinating):

  • ~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)
  • ~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.
  • ~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax”, to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.
  • ~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Vice and massive corruption are rampant, while the new-born Catholic Religion is gaining power (it becomes the religion of the Empire in 380 AD). There is extreme economic, political and military instability: there are 25 successive emperors in half a century (many end up assassinated), the Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war.
  • ~5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago being replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts “selling” parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the “Emperor has no clothes”, and overrun and pillage the Empire.
  • humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave); 12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD.

Regarding the Babylonian civilization (~2,000 BC), we have relatively few records, but we do know that they had a very advanced civilization because we found their legislative code written down on stone tablets (yes, they had laws and tribunals, and some of today’s commercial code can even be traced back to Babylonian law). They had child support laws (which seems to indicate that there was a family breakdown), and they collapsed presumably due to a “moral breakdown” figuratively represented in the Bible as the “Tower of Babel” (which was inspired by a real tower). Interesting and controversial anecdote: some claim that the Roman Catholic Religion is nothing more than a rewriting and adaptation of an ancient Babylonian religion!

You might say Roman cultural elites experienced Robin Hanson’s switch from a farmer to a forager society. How’d that turn out for everyone?

Let’s examine the parallels more closely.

~5 century BC Rome = ~1700 – 1920 America. The family unit is essentially “father knows best”, and slutting around by women is considered the height of shameful behavior, (as is cadding about by men). Monogamy is held up as the ideal arrangement without exception. (The “Wild West” might be an exception to the general rule of the day, as whoring and hell-raising were widespread in the frontier.) Lessers look up to their betters as exemplars of moral rectitude.

~1 century BC Rome = ~1920 – 1970 America. America is rising to the height of her power, a hyperpower being born. An economic and military power heretofore unseen in all recorded history. While the world digs out from under the rubble of consecutive wars and Communist pogroms, we have a battalion of aircraft carriers, a largely homogeneous population, and cheap housing for everyone willing to put in an honest day’s work. But the poison pill has been swallowed; the suffrage movement achieves its main goal, and the dark shroud of the equalist era is about to descend. In academic halls and classrooms, lessers are pedestalized, while betters are denigrated.

~1-2 century AD Rome = 1970-2000 America. The scourge of single momhood, free and easy divorce, child support laws, majority female colleges, DADT repealed, gay marriage, game, etc etc ad infinitum. In short, the ultimate expression of anti-discrimination, anti-received wisdom, individualist ideology, (ironically buttressed by the groupthink of diversity mongers.) Lessers ignore their betters, who in turn renege on their traditional responsibility to act as examples for the lessers.

~3-4 century AD Rome = 2000-2010 America. (You’ll notice America’s progression through the stages of empire is much faster than was Rome’s. This is the blessing — or curse — of high tech mass communication.) The native stock of America, (specifically, the betters of that stock), have stopped having kids. Vice and corruption are on the rise. (See: Chicago, CRA, Goldman Sachs, neocon lies, Enron, Madoff… I could go on.) Economic and political instability are the order of the day. While America’s presidents aren’t being assassinated, our elections have been nailbiters since 2000, and partisanship is at a fevered pitch. A reborn religion called Islam threatens to co-opt the sympathies of Western societies’ rootless rejects and masculinized women. Except for the thinnest upper class slice, betters now ape the habits of their lessers.

~5 century Rome = present day America. America is ruled by an elite of cognitive jackpot winners who use the President as a puppet. Massive debt and financial chicanery is practically enshrined in law. The army is less and less filled with the demographic slice of American citizens that used to make up its ranks. Mercenaries (UN peacekeepers, bribed warlords, arm-twisted allies, recent unassimilated immigrants, and the desperate, poor and out of shape) now make up a larger part of the tip of the spear that projects American power. America is in the process of slow-motion selling off of the Southwest to appease the millions of peasant illegals it cavalierly allowed to invade and settle in the country.

The Fall of Rome = ? America.

America is having her Tower of Babel moment, and the elites applaud it when they aren’t dithering over tax code arcana or the cultural impact of snarky late night TV hosts. These parallels with Rome’s fall should make you feel queasy about the future of this nation. But you’ll quickly push aside those depressing thoughts and switch on for another lightning round of Call of Duty, figuring it’s not your problem. Until it is. Do you feel lucky, punk?





Comments


  1. Just like Patton (or a good voice impersonator) updated for today… “This is not a Goddamn video game!”

    Liked by 1 person


  2. phat!

    Like


  3. But you’ll quickly push aside those depressing thoughts and switch on for another lightning round of Call of Duty, figuring it’s not your problem. Until it is. Do you feel lucky, punk?

    Those “depressing” thoughts are what get me through the day!

    Liked by 2 people


  4. “While America’s presidents aren’t being assassinated, our elections have been nailbiters since 2000, and partisanship is at a fevered pitch. A reborn religion called Islam threatens to co-opt the sympathies of Western societies’ rootless rejects and masculinized women.”

    are you even serious with this

    Like


  5. This is similar to Mangan’s social hormesis argument. As society is wealthier, the citizens lose the motivation to work hard to maintain what they’ve inherited.

    This adoption of luxury is most damaging to men, a point Mangan didn’t directly make. Wealthy men, and men in the republic before the fall, start living lifestyles previously reserved for women.

    Some Russian men like Putin and the owner of the New Jersey Nets do kickboxing and judo, but wealthy men typically end up living like women, more worried about which charity to support, or which architect to use for the third or fourth house. Ditto metrosexuality.

    We need to answer this question: does feminism weaken men, or do weak men inspire feminism?

    Liked by 2 people


  6. People forget that there was a fairly large grain tax that discouraged farming in the home provinces and pushed out the middle class to Spain/Africa or elsewhere. Small farmers who made the backbone of the army were replaced by large estates.

    I remember reading that if it was in the home provinces they had to pay with grain but elsewhere with coin so when inflation occurred the home provinces had to pay in real commodity while outer provinces simply payed in devalued coinage. Gracchian reforms attempted to remedy some of it but in the end it failed and Roman core was pushed out.

    Like


  7. I’d like to see more info on whether Christianity brought tyranny such as men and women having molten lead poured down their throats for having premarital sex. Maybe that’s just a rumor.

    Like


  8. Here is an example, from a rather cute female law professor at UGA Law School. Brace yourselves.

    “In Praise of the Beta Male
    by Usha Rodrigues ( http://tinyurl.com/2cjfoa5 )
    “I’m still thinking about an FT article from last month, a sure sign I should blog about it. Lucy Kellaway wrote about the secret ingredient for a woman looking to infiltrate the top echelons of the corporate world. Here’s her provocative thesis:

    “‘[it is right] that men hold women back, but is wrong to think the holding back happens at work. In fact, it happens at home. The biggest reason that alpha women don’t become CEOs is that they have made the common, yet fatal, error of marrying an alpha man.’

    “Kellaway read through the FT’s list of the 50 most powerful women in business with the same interest I did, and then she Googled the women searching for information on their personal lives. What she found wasn’t the Elena Kagan/Sonia Sotomayor/Condoleeza Rice style “single woman married to her job” model. Indeed, almost all had children, giving the lie to the common theory that reproducing that keeps women from the corner office. Instead, the pattern that emerged was one of beta males: “husbands who have been prepared to sacrifice their careers in order to aid the glorious ascent of their wives.”

    “This may be the dirty little secret of work-life balance for a woman. I observed it at the law firm: there were a fair number of high-flying women partners at Wilson Sonsini. Many of them had kids. All of them had stay-at-home husbands. It’s just hard to balance two alpha careers, particularly with kids around.

    “The problem, Kellaway says, is that “[h]igh-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren’t attracted to women who are more successful than they are.” But her advice to a young woman aspiring to the corner office rings true to me: “give more thought to her choice of spouse. She should go for someone who is mentally her match, but who is happy to play a supporting role.”

    “That’s what I did. My husband stays home. Sure, being a law professor isn’t half as demanding as being a CEO. Still, I don’t think I could have had 2 children pre-tenure and not stop the tenure clock without him at home. I don’t think of him as particularly a “beta male,” since he’s definitely in charge of the house and is quite opinionated, but I guess that’s how it looks from a certain angle. It sure works for us.”

    Like


  9. America is just a state.

    We keep thinking of it as a Civilization. It’s not.

    We’re one expression of this civilization.

    What collapsed was the Roman political order. The Roman civilization went on without difficulty.

    Europe is the descendant of that Civilization. In many ways, it *is* that civilization.

    What you’re documenting is the rise and fall of states.

    It’s the same with business empires. The first gen makes it, the second manages, the third spends.

    I’d say that feminism is a symptom of the decadence that brings about the collapse of the business empire. Like all things, it’s also a cause – it’s dynamic.

    Like


  10. You’re off by a decade with your 1970-2000 America breakdown. DADT wasn’t repealed until this year, gay marriage is still illegal in most states, and the rise of Game never made any significant inroads until high speed internet was made readily available (after 2000) and has only been recognized in the most recent decade.

    Liked by 1 person


  11. In short, the ultimate expression of anti-discrimination, anti-received wisdom, individualist ideology…

    What do you mean by individualist? Are you actually calling today’s egalitarian Leftist world an example of individualism? The “it takes a village to raise a child” Left as individualists?

    Essentially everything that today’s Left (and NeoCon Right) stands for is collectivist. The welfare-state is entirely premised on collectivism; ie “we’re all in this together.” The regulatory state and the Federal Reserve (central banking) only exist as to help finance and control the welfare-state.

    To say that the fall of America is due to individualism is worse than stupid. Its insane.

    Like


  12. It is just a thumbnail sketch. Earlier posts on polyamorous hypergamy show that for most beta males, the marriage solution is their best bet (someone said that without marriage 1.0, only 20% of men got to pass on their genes). Destroy that, you destroy the functioning part of society, the people that work and defend the country become, ah, disinterested. or they go violent and criminal.

    I disagree with the host, though, a society or country can limp on for quite a while. Even with barbarians at the gates.

    Like


  13. I done told the whole world… What you gonna do for her?… watch it, fool, watch it… (watch out is right… love that paternity testing!):

    Like


  14. “But the poison pill has been swallowed; the suffrage movement achieves its main goal, and the dark shroud of the equalist era is about to descend. In academic halls and classrooms, lessers are pedestalized, while betters are denigrated.”

    Is this an anti-intellectualism reference? or who do you consider the lessers and betters in academic context?.

    Like


  15. I think you’re premature. We’re still in 1-2 century AD, possibly just entering the 3rd century, compared to Rome. The USA hasn’t yet divested itself of any outlying provinces. Although there are foreign auxiliaries, they don’t form the bulk of the USA’s army.

    We have passed the Trajan/Hadrian years, I’m guessing WWI and WWII would be equivalent to the Bar Kochba revolt that depopulated the Empire for a century afterward.

    The successor to Christianity/Islam. has not yet risen. Unlike last time, the rulers forsee the religious angle, and are actively stamping it out wherever possible.

    What Christianity did to the Western Roman empire, Islam did to the Byzantine. When the time is right, another will rise, and it will confer selective advantage on those that follow it, because they will breed like rabbits and attract recruits like crazy. Possibly because they will restore the traditional offer of quality poon, WITH guarantees of fidelity.

    Like


  16. on December 27, 2010 at 4:17 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

    lzozozlzolo

    the fiat masters want to keep you mashing buttons in your single mom’s basememet lzozlozlzlz byuttyehxuiula heroess worhsip zlzozlolz

    Like


  17. There is something else that bothers me about this analysis. There are many variables at play with the downfall of civilizations. That female liberation existed in Rome as it does in present-day America, does not mean that that variable alone is responsible for civilizational decline.

    Both Rome and America became welfare-states with massive government beurocracies and inflated currencies. There both destroyed (or are destroying) the productive class with taxation, regulation, currency decimation, etc. That both societies allowed female freedoms does not tell us much. You would have to dig deeper.

    Why did both society’s institute welfare-stats? Why did they debase their currencies? Why did they punish their productive class? You would have to go to the level of philosophy and find out what ideas were in play.

    *What if America had no welfare-state and everyone had to earn their own way? What if the lowest members of society were allowed to die off without bleeding the rest of us dry to support them?

    *What if America had no central banks and the banking system was totally private with private currencies backed by hard metals and no legal tender laws and no Fractional Reserve Banking?

    *What if America had no anti-discrimination laws and employers could hire whoever they wanted and merit truly ruled?

    *What if America did not fight self-sacrificial wars and did not nation-build as a matter of foreign policy? What if we just bombed the shit out of anyone who fucked with us and let them rot afterwards?

    *What if America had no public education and the government had no place in the classroom? What if in America parents had total control over their children’s education by sending them to the private school that best represented their values and did not have to subsidize another parent’s children?

    *What if America had non-egalitarian divorce laws. No-fault is a red herring. What if a husband could contract with his wife via pre-nup that she will get very little upon divorce and what if the courts did not violate such contractual provisions?

    *What if America did not favor mothers over fathers in child custody cases?

    ——-

    My point is that the one factor of feminism is not the determinative one. If America were truly free and truly individualist, where everyone had to earn their own way and there was No Social Safety Net, then in that America I doubt women’s liberation or homosexual liberation would matter very much. Hell, in that society, immigration wouldn’t matter much either so long as there were no multicultualism and no welfare/public education.

    Babylonia, Rome, America – All fell or are falling not because of too much freedom, but because of too little.

    I don’t want to live in an egalitarian Leftist world. But I also don’t want to live in a patriarchal, religious or Conservative world. I have no problem with women having freedom and choice. With Game it is not hard to get women. Even today.

    Like


  18. John Bagot Glubb also wrote on the link between feminism and the decline not just of Roman culture but of several ancient empires – here is the source article and a recent writeup on The Spearhead.

    Liked by 1 person


  19. I think your timeline shows present day bias and underestimates the amount of ruin left in the nation.

    As far as the basic concept, it was developed and perfected by Sir John Glubb long ago. The duration of an empire is no longer than 250 years. Although empires have nominally existed longer, they underwent collapses and then proceeded under fundamentally different constitutions – e.g. the transition of Rome from a republic to a monarchy.

    Here’s the link: http://josephsblog.typepad.com/shorts/2010/09/decadence-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-city-on-a-hill.html

    Like


  20. Oh, God. This entry reads like a parody of the typical “The Fall of the Roman Empire Illustrates Whatever I Want to Believe” essay.

    A feminist could easily write the opposite, emphasizing different facts (ex: the rise of an extremely patriarchal religion paralleled the fall of Rome — as women lost freedom, Rome fared worse).

    Reading this blog reminds me of reading alternative-medicine sites. For every true statement, you have to stomach a shitload of woo.

    Liked by 1 person


  21. People have been comparing everything to the fall of the Roman Empire forever.

    CR is off-base, but not by much. There’s a process here.

    Remember, the Roman people (city of Rome) were on the dole long before the fall of the Republic. The seeds of Rome’s doom were planted when Rome was planted.

    The factions fighting for power in Rome lost sight of the Public Interest.

    There’s nothing wrong with sharing society’s benefits more widely. The issue is EXPECTING something when you’re not contributing.

    People get annoyed that they don’t have more, instead of happy to have anything at all.

    Like


  22. For those who believe that we hold an overly romantic view of the Roman Empire, an excerpt from this article by Petr Beckmann, my favorite rogue scientist:

    It is my opinion that the alleged Roman achievements are largely a myth; and I feel it is time for this myth to be debunked a little. What the Romans excelled in was bullying, bludgeoning, butchering and blood baths. Like the Soviet Empire, the Roman Empire enslaved peoples whose cultural level was far above their own. They not only ruthlessly vandalized their countries, but they also looted them, stealing their art treasures, abducting their scientists and copying their technical know-how, which the Romans’ barren society was rarely able to improve on. No wonder, then, that Rome was filled with great works of art. But the light of culture which Rome is supposed to have emanated was a borrowed light: borrowed from the Greeks and the other peoples that the Roman militarists had enslaved.

    In Beckmann’s analysis, there is little to compare between the modern West – particularly the USA – and the Empire. However, I was most amused by Ann Rice‘s account of the newly-awakened Pharoah Ramses’ stroll through modern-day London, where he saw evidence of Roman influence everywhere he looked.

    Like


  23. “humanity falls back into the Bronze Age etc”

    Gotta disagree a bit. The so called religious zealotry preserved Europe from even more savage peoples (vikings, sarracens, irish, mongolian et caterva) and even made advancements in some areas, like regulating secular power through the Pope and creating totally new institutions like hospitals via clergy.

    In fact, only after the Pope replaced Caesar the emperors realized they were not divine. All other peoples in the world had the religious and secular power mixed.

    Humanity would fall back to the stone age without the Church. No need to be a believer to recognize that.

    Like


  24. on December 27, 2010 at 4:48 pm Johnycomelately

    Dumitru Duduman modern day Romanian prophet:

    He showed me all of California and said, “This is Sodom and Gomorrah! All of this, in one day it will burn! It’s sin has reached the Holy One.” Then he took me to Las Vegas. “This is Sodom and Gomorrah. In one day it will burn.” Then he showed me the state of New York. “Do you know what this is?” he asked. I said, “No.” He said “This is New York. This is Sodom and Gomorrah! In one day it will burn.” Then he showed me all of Florida, “This is Florida.” he said. “This is Sodom and Gomorrah! In one day it will burn.”

    Like


  25. on December 27, 2010 at 4:53 pm GoodbyePorkpiehat

    “America, love it or leave it!”…so nice that they offered a choice! What they didn’t mention is which America. I just assumed they meant SOUTH America, and, yes, in fact, I do love it.

    Like


  26. History is not based on Battlestar Gallactic: “What has happened before will happen again.”

    There’s are quite a few historical problems with this analysis:

    1) Medieval feudalism was not a “forager” society. Forager societies were the tribal societies found in places like early colonial North America.

    Feudalism was based around land/ farming and was associated with medieval Europe. (ie- after the fall of Rome.) Feudalism is all about farming and they were sedendary peasants not travelling foragers.

    2) The emancipation of women and children in Rome. Huh? Rome did not have anything close to a 19th or 20th century concept of individual rights for women and children. (or men) Totally different understanding of rights and citizenship. There was no modern day understanding of “human rights.”

    And places like colonial British North America had child support laws. The existance of those laws don’t necessarily tell you anything about the legal status of women and children. All they mean is that politcally connected fathers of daughers wanted compensation for the loss of her labor and the cost of raising the child. It was compensation for a transgression of the rights of fathers.

    Puritan Massachusetts and Conneticut had fairly generous divorce laws in place. Men were punished for fornication & bastardy and were docked money for child support. Do you think the Puritans were a bunch of feminists?

    3) Rome was a slaveholding society throughout its history with all of the associated hierarchies. Whadaya mean a concept of individual/human rights?

    4) The cause-effect of feminism and historical change are underanalyzed in this post. (And feminism/ human rights are not well defined.) The Industrial Revoloution and the growth of human rights are ignored. And, as we know, Rome never experienced that particular historical change.

    By 1860 a women’s rights movement was well underway in the USA, operating in conjunction with the anti-abolition movement. It wasn’t 20th century second-wave feminism that profoundly changed the world in terms of child/women’s rights — it was the 19th century industrial revolution.

    Like


  27. on December 27, 2010 at 5:02 pm Fourmyle of Ceres

    F. Roger Devlin already wrote about this, and he had more examples than just Rome.

    Like


  28. Paternity testing… an absolute MUST!

    Like


  29. Like I said, stick to what you know. This post is less insightful and even more ambitious (definite strong correlation there) then the Jewish post. Academics spend lifetimes detailing small aspects of what you’ve tried (and failed) to summarize in a few pages.

    I love your stuff on body language, etc…writing above your head and sounding like a fool is not alpha.

    [Editor: Translation: You say stuff that I disagree with.]

    Like


  30. absolutely horrible entry. When you make up multiple step analysis of complex problems with dozens alternative explanations, don’t think “does this sound nice?” but “is this actually true?”.

    Like


  31. I noticed that while prostitution was rampant in ancient Rome, you didn’t say anything about it with respect to the corollary period in America. Why omit the good stuff?

    Like


  32. Well guys look at it this way:

    On one end the O administration and the fed is fighting tooth and nail with Arizona to keep the border open. On the other, it’s penalizing the legal gun owners by stating that guns are flowing freely across into Mexico.

    Who’s the loser here? The illegals? Nope.

    Fuck the fed and start realizing that it’s lost its loyalty to something that supercedes ANY government in this country; The Constitution. There are only a few more election cycles left for real change to happen before something a whole hell of a lot worse than Rome comes about.

    Like


  33. You idiots unreservedly bashing the post stink of peasant.

    It was mostly an insightful gloss, and a theme that bears repeating.

    Like


  34. Was going to comment, but Gotzon pretty much nailed it, at least part of it (and I’m not a theist). A lot of htis reads like what your biases want to believe, but not so much the reality of the two situations. (Yes, there are lots of historical parallels, not the least of which the idea that much of ancient Rome and modern-day America are very much alike, especially in the military/world cop sense, but this is way-too-broadly over-drawn.)

    Like


  35. “Like it or not, a growing proportion of the next generation will be born into families who believe that father knows best.”

    http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy

    Like


  36. on December 27, 2010 at 6:04 pm Johnycomelately

    “Academics spend lifetimes detailing small aspects of what you’ve tried (and failed) to summarize in a few pages.”

    Wankers spend a lifetime critiquing others on their work and what of it? Academia is a circle jerk.

    Like


  37. I moved to Thailand 5 years ago. I have no plans to move back to America.

    Like


  38. I think the author is confusing one more symptom for the underlying disease:

    As government becomes larger, more intrusive, populated by greedy sociopaths appealing to the parasites, then it becomes more alienated from true human nature. Inevitably then, the adult, independent, intelligent, and productive members of society simply pick up their work, and withdraw from that society, each in their own way. All that is left is a decaying state providing bread and circuses until total exhaustion.

    A previous poster was right, the civilization will remain in these pockets of productive members, but the failed state will whither away.

    Like


  39. Interestingly, I made a very similar comment on the previous thread re “hormesis” about this at about the moment this was being posted- that the cause wasn’t stresses of a mechanical kind, but the downslope in the cycle of civilization.

    The one point that neither Reddit guy nor CH noted, which I would add, is the growth of government past the point of basic justice and defense to the point of paralysis, dysfunction, and parasitism. (as well as its role as enforcer of said feminism by elites largely isolated from its consequences.) Byzantine disease. (There’s a reason we use that word for impenetrable bureaucracies: the Byzantine Empire was in fact the Eastern Roman Empire, which had 1000 more years to rot and decay after the barbarians sacked Rome.) I mean, FDR ran WWII with a White House staff much smaller than now manages the First Lady’s social calendar. To say nothing of the continual expansion of agencies, judicial role in the economy, and self-defeating lack of mercantilism in the face of globalization of the kind that all other countries, including our main competitors in Europe, practice very well.

    The only upside may be, in the view of this analogy, that our dark age to come won’t last 1000 years, but be reduced into a single or small number of generations, because of the acceleration of historical change enabled by technology. i.e., if a better time with better values is within living or historical memory, it will be easier to recover than knowledge totally lost.

    Like


  40. Two corrections. First, the US military is almost exclusively White/Protestant/Southern/Western. Steve Sailer has a couple of posts on the break-outs of who is in the military. It is voluntary, requires higher IQ than the average population, and is relatively small, both in size and GDP.

    Secondly, the fall of the Roman Empire was related to internal strife, which precipitated the transition to Empire in the first place. Roman civil wars decimated first the Republic, and then the Empire, as ordinary small farmers were replaced by a constant churning of new elites (as old aristocratic families died out and were replaced with new elite families). The extraordinary amount of wealth allowed various aristocrats to raise what amounted to private armies, funded by vast estates run by slave labor.

    Like


  41. Here’s a heartwarming story that surely contradicts everything the hosts think about feminism and diversity.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341683/Donna-Simpsons-feast-The-30-000-calorie-Christmas-feast-eaten-worlds-fattest-mum-ONE-hour-sitting.html
    How’s it feel to be a woman. No matter how fucking ugly and fat you are, there’s still some swarthy dude who will knock you up.

    Like


  42. Read Spengler’s Decline of the West, although rejected for it’s inaccurate science and some non-pc’ing – it explains perfectly what happens in history to cultures.
    i.e. it is like all living organism, it has a birth, childhood, adulthood, and old age, and death.
    America or the West is in it’s old age form and has been since the 30’s. It is dying, but will be replaced (hopefully) by a new young civilization.

    Like


  43. Actually I’m glad that western civ is dying. My logic is:

    1. I despise feminism.

    2. The west is feminist.

    3. Therefore I despise the west.

    Like


  44. Glubb’s book, referenced earlier in this thread, is pretty good. A lot quicker and easier to read than Spengler, too.

    Like


  45. Why do people post those Maury you are not the father vids. I fucking can’t stand them. Wouldn’t watch a split second of it.

    Like


  46. We have passed the Trajan/Hadrian years, I’m guessing WWI and WWII would be equivalent to the Bar Kochba revolt that depopulated the Empire for a century afterward.

    No.

    I see WWII as equivalent to the 2nd Punic War. Scipio Affricanus was Rome’s General Patton. But as he said, and this I agree with, America’s fall is happening quicker than Rome’s. At this pace, America will not even make it to 2050.

    Like


  47. Your comparison was good. However, the author you quoted is just one of many that constantly project the rise of femininity with that of Christianity. That’s pure garbage. You will not find a more masculine book that demands men act like men than the Bible. This is especially true with the New Testament that qualifies a man’s worthiness to serve as a leader based upon his ability to control/manage his wife & children. That’s just one of many examples. The common misconception that Jesus, and Christian men in particular, are/should be these passive push-overs is pure fantasy & myth. Unfortunately, the churches have been infested with multitudes of betas & herbs looking for an easy gig where they can command the kind of respect that eludes them in the real world. They do this by catering their actions to the likes of the women who the Apostle Paul pointed out are so susceptible to false teachings and emotional drivel versus the truth of God’s word.

    Like


  48. seriously, i hate feminism as much as the next man (i mean man, not feminized reader of NYBT) and love Rome and roman culture as much as the next Italian (i am Italian myself), but this dude does not know what he’s talking about.

    let me just go briefly over it (I take only one paragraph, coz I have other things to do):

    *~1BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world.*
    TRUE

    *Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work.*
    Material wealth is astounding (by ancient standards) but the rest is bullshit. Citizens do need to work. The only ones who do not need to work are a small fraction of the population (maybe 5%-10%) who enjoy aristocratic power or official positions and owns much land administered by their slaves or rented out. The rest of the citizens (I am excluding the slaves) need to work the land (80% of the population is made up by farmers) to have a livelihood. In Rome lives also a sizable number of ‘have-nots’ who either have to join the military or work as servant or thugs for the rich elite in order to survive.

    *they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated*
    Democracy? Rome was ruled by a small elite of aristocrats who constantly fought against each other causing repeated bloodshed in the city. The plebs only elect two tribunes who have veto power on some issues but no other power. The rest of the officials are members of the aristocracy.
    Human rights? Difficult issue. Romans do not have human rights per se’ (political enemies constantly killed each other) nor a constitution that guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They had some political rights and there was a widespread use of courts to settle matters, but they have no developed idea of human right but rather of privileges, honors and duties associated with social positions.
    Animal rights? Yeah, right.
    Science? unfortunately Rome did not know science as it is, or ever really developed scientific method. The only thing they had is technical development caused by engineering and agricultural improvements (which again was unprecedented by historical standards but dwarfed by what the Anglos have done from 1600 on).

    I stop here with a simple consideration: the fall of the Roman empire has probably more to do with the inherent instability of their political system (they were never able to find a system -or a culture- that guarantees pacific and stable transfer of power) and the technological problem of governing an empire that covered most of Europe and modern Middle East (think about it: the Empire went from Scotland to Iraq. Would a modern State be able to govern that, even with modern technology? I doubt it)

    As a conservative I understand it is tempting to say that Rome fell because their morals were lost (and there is partial truth to that: sometime in the 2nd and 3rd century the Romans stopped fighting for their own empire and left the defense to barbarians mercenaries) and that the same thing is going to happen to the US but these things are more complicated than they seem.

    So I am all in favor of complaining about feminism but let’s not draw unjustified parallels…

    Like


  49. All of this has happened before…and it will all happen again.

    Like


  50. Evan,

    I skipped the rest of the comments to say ME TOO.

    Like


  51. Don’t worry New World Order aka the real U.S. government won’t let America fall that easily.

    To quote “The Good Shepherd”

    “Italian: Let me ask you something… we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

    Edward Wilson (CIA/WASP): The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.”

    The funny thing is the top 10% of the USA still owns at least 40-50% of the wealth of America. Every empire needs slaves… now its in the form of illegal immigrants.

    Like


  52. Exeter,

    The Maury vids function as telltales to the force and scale of unrestrained human depravity pursuing us all in recent decades.

    And it’s good to see a cross-section of liars (women) squirm and wail in front of a national audience (shaming) when caught in their own self-serving snares.

    Like


  53. Many things caused the Central Roman State to lose its ability to maintain communication and relative safety within the empire. High on the list was the irrevocable loss of North African grain and tax money to some “barbarians”. The easy money from there was suddenly gone and the Italian core lacked the competence to function effectively without it.
    The point of no return was when literacy lost its value as long-distance communications became impossible (or pointless). Literacy itself died out. This is what brought on the Dark Ages and led to the extinguishing the vast bulk of classical learning. Unreadable books became useful only as fire-starters.
    Trends in gender relationships might weaken our civilization but I doubt we could experience that sort of fall.

    Like


  54. on December 27, 2010 at 7:39 pm anonymouses anonymous

    I’d swear this was written by GBFM if it mentioned Ben Bernanky, and had lolz.

    Like


  55. Is there a standard PUA reference book on alpha body language, sort of like what Mystery’s book is to the method, the 9 stages, etc?

    Also, I second that request; where is that big list of CH maxims that he refers to every so often?

    Like


  56. @Gone Over

    I got a question for you. What do you do for money? I’d love to move to say, Philippines, Vietnam or Thailand. Plentiful asian poon, your money goes a longer distance and it’s usually pretty warm.

    Like


  57. Ah, alarmism, always popular. I thought our culture would disintegrate if we didn’t get a flag-burning amendment.

    Like


  58. “Baby Boomers Near 65 with Retirements in Jeopardy,” by Dave Carpenter, AP via Yahoo! News, 27 DEC 10, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_retirement_crisis

    Like


  59. on December 27, 2010 at 9:26 pm Blessent mon coeur

    Meanwhile, in Old England, ‘a man jailed for six years for stabbing former Coventry City star Calum Davenport has had his sentence cut.’

    Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2010/12/21/calum-davenport-attacker-has-jail-sentence-cut-92746-27860790/#ixzz19MwrkgaM

    Related to
    1. The decline of the family unit as essentially “father knows best”;
    2. The decline of slutting around by women as considered the height of shameful behavior, (along with cadding about by men);
    3. The decline of monogamy being held up as the ideal arrangement without exception;
    4. The scourge of single momhood;
    5. Free and easy divorce;
    6. Child support laws/welfare to the same effect (bureaugamy).
    Etc.

    Like


  60. @Bringthemovies

    What do I do for money? I’m retired (54 years old) and live off my investments. I’m not terribly rich but I have enough to live comfortably in SE Asia. Granted, this is not really an option for a younger man who hasn’t had time to put away much cash yet. If I was young I’m not sure what I’d do. Guess I’d keep working and saving and hoping things hold together long enough for me to stash away enough wealth to make my getaway.

    But I do like it here, for all the reasons you stated:

    ” Plentiful asian poon, your money goes a longer distance and it’s usually pretty warm.”

    Like


  61. I have read a bit about Rome. Rome was weakened economically. It did face wave upon wave of barbarian invasions. We underestimate this, but, the Romans understood only too well.

    People don’t understand how barbarians could defeat a highly civilized country. Here is how:

    1. The technology of warfare was relatively simple. Iron weapons. The barbarians almost always had the advantage of being mounted and thus more mobile. The Romans had the advantage of interior lines of communication, training, and discipline. Since the invention of gunpowder, the barbarian threat has ceased to exist.

    2. The Barbarians had the advantage of striking when and where they wanted.

    3. The Romans could never easily destroy them in their own homeland unless they wanted to launch very expensive punitive expeditions over a very long distance, on foot. If they did so, they were just replaced by more barbarians.

    4. As Gibbons noted in his History Of Rome (unabridged version), a civilized country finds it can only maintain a standing army of about 1% of its population. Even in our wealthy society, maintaining an effective Army of 3 million would be a great burden. Just think about those pensions. That’s why they had to invade other countries. To support their Army and get land to give to retiring soldiers. A barbarian nations puts its entire adult male population into its army. And, they basically work for free. Thus, in war, the number of available soldiers to each side was often similar despite the much larger population of the civilized country. The barbarian army was not a great drain on the public treasury, nor did the Army become a threat to the State.

    5. The Barbarians were usually desperate, poor men. It was worth the risk.

    6. The Roman population included many slaves, with no loyalty to Rome.

    None of this excuses the enervation of feminism. That was real, too. I see this enervation everyday at work. Give me an all male workforce of my choosing, and I would destroy any female dominated competition.

    Like


  62. It isn’t feminism, per se, but the the cultural shift which leads to the acceptance of such vile concepts.

    Women will resent and blame men for what has happened. And turn to the “strong horse”, as Osama Bin Laden put it. And this can be seen in Europe where more and more women are joining the ranks of Islam.

    Shape up, heathens. No advanced civilization is destroyed by outside forces. They destroy themselves long before sand sucking savages invade.

    Like


  63. Historical determinism is bunk (to paraphrase Henry Ford).

    Immorality and social decline are unrelated. Venice was famously decadent yet it managed to go toe-to-toe with the Ottoman Empire for generations. Restoration-era England was probably more licentious than even 1970s California, yet during that time England began conquering a global empire.

    I agree America is in trouble now, but not fall-of-Rome trouble. For one thing, we have no Empire to lose, and all our foreign adventures run at a loss. If we have to pull back to the homeland, we don’t get poorer.

    Our problem isn’t external at all. No enemy — not even China — would be able to invade our lands. Our problem is that our leadership (and our media) are corrupt, and have bankrupted the country paying off their supporters.

    If you want to draw a parallel to Rome, this isn’t the fall, this is the end of the Republic and the start of the Empire. Indeed, at some point some Democratic politician will realize that by conquering other countries he can bring home loot to buy votes with, and suddenly every liberal will be all fired up for military glory.

    Like


  64. Americans have no interest in living in other countries America is able to conquer, and this is the nuclear age. The fallout would be virtually irreversible. Romans moved to the conquered lands. Americans don’t want to live in sandstorms. You can’t rule a nation from afar. This has been learned many times over.

    Like


  65. Since we talk about the repetitive nature of history (granted, with coeficients that provide the zeitgeist flavoring), this won’t be so OT…

    In the coming New Year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union address will occur on the same day. It is an ironic juxtaposition of events: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to an insignificant creature of little intelligence for prognostication, while the other involves a groundhog.

    Like


  66. Just to add:

    The contemporary Roman writers saw their trouble with the barbarians for what it was: Waves of 10’s of thousands of brutal well armed and mounted warriors coming across their border. They had to go fight them man to man. Any volunteers? No predator drones available! No machine guns. No 40 millimeter grenade launchers firing 6 rounds per second with a range of a mile.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_GMG

    Actually, if you read about it, the shovel was one of the most powerful weapons in the Roman army. Trenches could stop horses when nothing else could.

    It is hilarious reading modern writers saying that the REAL problem was the emancipation of women!

    Like


  67. Bare the already mentioned event that for a foreseeable future would remain to entertain us, there is a problem with historical parallels–they do not account for random fluctuations that can overturn the projected trends on a dime.

    Also, one dynamic is missing here–the demographics. The flyover states are closer to a replacement threshold than both left coasts. It is as if lib/progs/LGT and other deviants don’t reproduce (or nearly so) because in some ember of lucidity they know they are essentially sick. Ironically, it is they that are usually so enamored with the darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest.

    Like


  68. Even when a woman’s shit-tests and abuse is the cause of a marriage breakdown, she will blame the man.

    Women push and push and push and push like little children, always testing their men. When you fail, they get resentful and bitchy.

    Women, as a collective, have pushed and pushed and feminized Western men. Now, they seek out more manly men from elsewhere.

    By being civilized, treating them as equals, and giving them respect that we normally reserve for other men, we have failed our women.

    Just like in a marriage, when they bitch, whine and complain, the right response is: tough.

    When they get irrational and start making bizarre demands and complaining about how the man is responsible for the weather and her bad moods and everything else, … we give in and appease.

    We’ve been appeasing.

    Women have no compunction about obliterating anything of value, much like an angry housewife who is *really* upset that her Man is no longer a MAN. She says all kinds of things, whines about the garbage or the carpets or whatever, but the man has failed at his job: Being a man.

    We failed.

    We gave in.

    We lost the shit test.

    If we want to save our civilization, we need to stop being collective pussies and tell self-destructive women to shut up and sit down – as a group.

    It will annoy them, but they will respect us.

    This is why women seem to be destroying it all and then abandoning ship. It’s a direct parallel for female behavior in relationships.

    Forget Rome.

    Like


  69. on December 27, 2010 at 10:57 pm DISCIPLE OF HAHAURFUCKED

    DEAR WHITES AND YELLOWS,

    SPEND LESS TIME READING ABOUT NOT ENOUGH CHILDREN BEING BORN.

    SPEND MORE TIME HAVING CHILDREN.

    THANK YOU THAT IS ALL.

    Like


  70. To the silly person who tried to defend the reputation of “Pygmy chimps”. Take a deep breath and realize that you have said and confirmed that the only thing seperating these fat, soft-bodied Bonobo chimps from their Nemesis (in the form of real chimps) is just a stream in Africa. I mean, if it dries up or gets diverted, the hippie-chimps will be promptly eaten for their protein-content and/or the better females seized to be put to work, so to speak.
    I could try to explain to you why these bonobos make sure to spend all their time hiding in different locales than where the real chimps live; but doing so might conjure up some unpleasant images …. Why do you think the bonobos stay in the boondocks? Should we discuss what the blood-soaked ground would look like if there was a serious fight over a nice fruit-tree between the two groups? Are words like “headless” or “eviscerated” ok to use in polte society?

    Like


  71. And thats why Rome fell!

    There must be as many theories about why Rome fell as there are living history teachers.
    I agree to a point, Rome became rich, weak and feminized, unable to withstand the barbarians at the gate. Just like America/Europe.
    I am not sure if any roman suffragettes picketed the senate thus helping the fall to come. But I do know we got suffragettes and feminazis picketing our parlaments.

    Good read anyway…as always.

    @Gone Over
    Cheers…we live in the same country, Ive been here for 2 years now.

    Like


  72. not on topic but:

    Like


  73. @mschro

    Great vid!

    Like


  74. Gotzon is right, a lot of this analysis is skewed. It’s right on the demographic side, and how the empowerment of females helped cause the imperial decline, but he’s talking rubbish about the aftermath.

    The so-called Dark Ages saw the preservation of far more of Graeco-Roman culture than anyone could have foreseen. The vast slave populations of Europe were given much greater freedom under the new Feudal system, and the great external threats of Islam and the eastern invaders were defeated again and again. Systems of banking and trade, and the basis of modern farming as well as much of the crowning glories of our art and poetry were during this period.

    The Church was responsible for a lot of this. The monasteries were beacons of science and
    knowledge. The great intellectual texts of Greece and Rome werecopied and preserved by the monks.

    Like


  75. Also, the Eastern empire did survive for another thousand years, largely by modernising their army (copying the barbarian use of cavalry, for example) and by permitting the complete Christianisation of the state (and banning abortion) thus boosting the birth rate.

    Like


  76. awesome vid

    Like


  77. on December 28, 2010 at 1:37 am The Man Who Was . . .

    It has been noted by Robin Hanson and Steve Sailer, among others, that civilizations rarely just collapse on their own. They need a good push from outside. Now, they have to have rotted from the inside too. But inward rottenness alone usually isn’t enough.

    The future is not apocalyptic. We in the West are on a long slide down to mediocrity and stasis (hello Brazil), but unless someone more plausible than the Islamists is going to attack us, the end is not nigh.

    “And it may be that the only thing more frightening than the possibility of annihilation is the possibility that our society could coast on forever as it is — like a Rome without an Attila to sack its palaces, or a Nineveh without Yahweh to pass judgment on its crimes.” – Ross Douthat

    Like


  78. on December 28, 2010 at 1:40 am The Man Who Was . . .

    If anyone is interested, I’ve been having a long back and forth with Jim Kalb about whether liberalism must collapse under its own contradictions. Anyway, it’s here.

    Like


  79. Rome:

    Sargon, a major loss was North Africa. Anatolia. Also the Middle East. Syria, the area right up to the Euphrates, a weakened Parthia – and even Arabia, for that matter – were largely Christian or becoming Christian.

    Egypt was a massive loss.

    Islam was beaten back, but at a ridiculously high price. It was more like an onslaught that was stopped after half the Known World had been stolen.

    Note that Spain had to be reclaimed, and the Holy Land, too (though that reclamation failed).

    When Christendom includes North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East, then we can say the Islamic hordes were beaten back.

    Like


  80. on December 28, 2010 at 2:03 am Chris from Dublin

    Terrifying

    Like


  81. @DISCIPLE OF HAHAURFUCKED

    Did you know that the average child costs around $200,000 to raise? That’s brown and blacks btw and not whites and yellow babies. They would probably cost more around $600,000 – One million since nursery schools, private secondary schools/neighborhoods and private colleges are all getting really competitive and expensive.

    I rather spend that kind of money on a new 911, traveling Eastern Europe or getting a second house.

    Like


  82. “Edward Wilson (CIA/WASP): The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.”

    # of Protestants on the Supreme Court: zero

    Some visit.

    Like


  83. “~5 century Rome = present day America. America is ruled by an elite of cognitive jackpot winners who use the President as a puppet”

    Not exactly. Many of the politicians and appointees
    running around in DC, collecting massive salaries
    and benefits, are so stupid you want to cry.
    Really. I am NOT talking about having differences
    of opinion. Guam might capsize. Can we outlaw
    nitrogen (this is a real, but inside, story). What?
    were the arrests of suspected Al Quiada members
    in London? Etc.

    Thor

    Like


  84. Wasn’t there a Simpson’s joke about Helen of Troy having a face launching a 1000 ships… the other way.

    I found that face.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/12/barack-obama-michelle-obama-hail-kwanzaa-holiday.html

    Like


  85. Wake up white man.

    Is the white race worth preserving?

    Like


  86. I was rather bothered overnight by the schizophrenia of this post which matches the schizophrenia of this blog. I agree with the social conservatives here that the host finally needs to either embrace social conservatism and, for instance, fight for the continued control of the Republican Party by the socons, or recognize that he’s in an opposing camp to their collapsing numbers.

    Most alphas, throughout history, have been opposed to social conservatism unless the system opened up discrete doorways for them to have lots of good sex. The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s was driven by alpha males who were sick of a society that demanded they marry same-age women. The hypergamous type of feminist only assisted these guys for awhile, until they were replaced sexually, after which the feminists joined the Moral Majority to pretend that straight PUAs were the main carriers of AIDS (coordinated Christian-Feminist marketing campaign in April 1986).

    Child Support Laws are the only thing keeping me and the Chateau from having lots of babies and letting the women’s parents (or population replenishment subsidies) finance their upbringing.

    The natural “licentiousness” of the Alpha male has had nothing to do with the fall of any civilization.

    Like


  87. “America is ruled by an elite of cognitive jackpot winners who use the President as a puppet. Massive debt and financial chicanery is practically enshrined in law. The army is less and less filled with the demographic slice of American citizens that used to make up its ranks. Mercenaries (UN peacekeepers, bribed warlords, arm-twisted allies, recent unassimilated immigrants, and the desperate, poor and out of shape) now make up a larger part of the tip of the spear that projects American power. America is in the process of slow-motion selling off of the Southwest to appease the millions of peasant illegals it cavalierly allowed to invade and settle in the country.”

    This is it basically. America’s fall will run along the lines of demographics and rising minority influence as it already has been. Feminism helps this as at its fundamentals are attacking and undermining White men where ever it is possible. The jackpot winners win more.

    The societal status quo says this does not matter conveniently omits and flat out denies it.

    Whether America v Rome was a good analogy is beside the point.

    Like


  88. Very interesting post. Contrary to some, I actually started reading this blog for the cultural analysis more than the game talk. You link the two well.

    Like


  89. The recent development of DNA testing has been horrifying both for alpha males and frustrated married women. That might cause less babies to be born overall. I’m continually astonished when the Chateau hails DNA testing as if he’s representing the interest of Beta males when that’s against his own interest.

    Let’s remember that its Social Conservatives who support Child Support laws more than Feminists do. They are the ones holding Alphas back from impregnating more women (or marrying at least for the sake of appearances).

    They want Alphas to be “responsible” – which causes a collective “Fuck You” from most men who, for instance, refused to vote in the 2006 and 2008 elections because of the Christian-Feminist alliance represented by the Bush and McCain/Palin people.

    Feminism probably destroys civilizations because it causes the Alpha males to move away and mate with foreign women.

    I can imagine a lot of Roman Alphas mated with the tall German girls. The German guy (Hermann) who wiped out the Roman Legions was raised in Rome.

    Like


  90. I know there have been books written about how the smartest men did leave Rome for points north in the two centuries before the western empire collapsed. “Barbarian” women were probably considered better looking by many.

    A Christian Rome would have been a place where Alphas probably made themselves scarce because of the threat of having molten lead poured down their throats if they had sex with someone younger, hotter, tighter.

    I’d take a freer “Barbarian” society any day.

    Just as I served in the US military of the 20th Century because it allowed me to travel the world and because it conferred a “brotherhood” status that has paid off later in life, I can imagine a lot of Roman movers and shakers traveled with the military at some point in their lives and acquired land and gorgeous women outside of Italy.

    More historians need to look at the fall of Rome in terms of the loss of its best men to the “Barbarians”.

    To say that Rome fell because of “prostitution” ignores the fact that the Christians were pouring molten lead down the throats of prostitutes long before Rome was sacked.

    I was raised to believe the religious zealots brought on the Dark Ages. The sacking of Rome was just a formality.

    Like


  91. Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the Babylonian civilization perished due to radioactive fallout, not social chaos (as per their clay tablature)…

    Like


  92. on December 28, 2010 at 5:00 am Fidel Ribbentrop

    I’d say the 1st century BC parallels the Enlightenment in Europe, with the 5th-1st century BC being comparable to the Middle Ages.

    Like


  93. Its entirely possible that Roman women got less feminine than “Barbarian” women (because of anti-male laws not because the girls at the Temple of Aphrodite were “licentious”) and the ensuing centuries worth of Roman men mating with Barbarian women altered the balance of power away from the city of Rome itself.

    The Chateau got it right in the Assange post (we need update posts on Assange) when he described men’s problem as the “Christian Feminists”.

    I would have cleared away from Rome after the Battle of the Malvian Bridge.

    If I could edit the above comments, I’d note that the US men who stayed away from the polls in 2006 and 2008 (because neither McCain nor Obama were male-friendly) were not necessarily the “majority of American men” so much as a significant amount of men who normally vote independent (which possibly describes the alphas because only betas are loyal to the two party system). *

    These guys decide elections.

    These guys hate social conservativism + feminism.

    They hate big government, period.

    A social conservative presidential candidate will lose in 2012 even to Obama.

    * Note that high taxes are not male-friendly because they necessarily take money from older men and give it to young women, allowing the young women to say fuck you to all men. I’m sure a lot of that nonsense was happening in ancient Rome as the good men abandoned it.

    Like


  94. @Jerry,

    You’re interesting for an odd tidbit: You can spin practically everything into an issue related to men getting to bed younger women. It’s actually quite a feat.

    And as for Hermann, the guy who was raised in Rome and outwitted Augustus’ legion, … You mean Arminius, who ambushed and beat three legions in the Teutoberg against Varus, the guy whose name Augustus would sometimes wander around his palace uttering in emotive bursts?

    Rome collapsed, ultimately, because all dynasties collapse.

    The Rome that collapsed as the barbarians surged over the hills and Honorius was incapable of stopping them was nothing like the Republican empire, the Principate of the Julio-Claudians or the decadent 3rd-century empire that followed.

    It was also absolutely nothing like the city-state that fought its way to survival against crazy odds 500 years before, fighting, more or less, because it had no choice.

    By the time the Empire fell, it was economically moribund, and slavery was a huge part of that. Slavery enriches the elite, but utterly devastates the consumer-producer economy of the citizens. The elite were – almost literally – a different country in Rome.

    Unless it was making Garum (disgusting fish sauce), which was still done by a few plebeian family-ops, often in far-flung places like Spain, most activities were monopolies, oligopolies, or controlled by slave-owners, and trade was stifled.

    CR is grasping at straws here. Feminism was, at best, an effect of the collapse of Rome. It was an effect of its luxury and decadence. Women could afford to get divorced, because, … well, they were elite women. They were above everyone else but elite men.

    Slavery was a root cause for the economic inefficiency in Rome. This vast pool of human potential was more or less untapped, and slave-labor is notoriously inefficient.

    Like all civilizations, finally, this can be said:

    The elites betrayed it, often not even knowing they were doing so at the time.

    Like


  95. CR: You’ve got it wrong.

    *THIS* is what’s happening here.

    Our elites on right and left fight phoney battles, which mean a lot to them and aren’t phoney to them, while our economic base is off-shored. We rabidly support the rise of rivals without even getting access to their markets. We sit here in our misguided self-hatred debating how many gold coins we should throw to our entitled masses, and neither side has a solution.

    We build empires without the will to provide for them, develop them or police them. The right says invade; the left says withdraw.

    We do everything schizophrenically.

    The left needs to wake up to some facts. 1) We’re in Iraq. Your bitching and whining came too late. 2) If we don’t make good on it, we’re fucked in so many ways (reputation, money, politically, terrorism, Islam, etc.). But the left just wants revenge against the right – even if Iraq falls apart, and America loses out, they don’t care – their Moral Superiority and IToldYouSo revenge is more important than anything else. The right-wing is more interested in lining their friends’ pockets – and their own – and hiding the fact that they’re interested in absolutely nothing but their own personal fortunes *right now*. Tomorrow can sort itself out.

    There are no longer any patriots.

    A perfect analogy:
    In effect, we have Crassus (the right), Caesar (the Left),

    What we need is 20 years of practical government

    Like


  96. “”

    Rob

    Like I said, stick to what you know. This post is less insightful and even more ambitious (definite strong correlation there) then the Jewish post. Academics spend lifetimes detailing small aspects of what you’ve tried (and failed) to summarize in a few pages.

    I love your stuff on body language, etc…writing above your head and sounding like a fool is not alpha.

    [Editor: Translation: You say stuff that I disagree with.]””

    No Mr. Editor. For instance I don’t know whether to agree or disagree, I would have to investigate more for that an i know that, but I sure feel that your knowledge in this topic is not so great as in attracting women.

    Like


  97. *THIS* is what’s happening here.

    Our elites on right and left fight phoney battles, which mean a lot to them and aren’t phoney to them, while our economic base is off-shored. We rabidly support the rise of rivals without even getting access to their markets. We sit here in our misguided self-hatred debating how many gold coins we should throw to our entitled masses, and neither side has a solution.

    We build empires without the will to provide for them, develop them or police them. The right says invade; the left says withdraw.

    We do everything schizophrenically.

    The left needs to wake up to some facts. 1) We’re in Iraq. Your bitching and whining came too late. 2) If we don’t make good on it, we’re fucked in so many ways (reputation, money, politically, terrorism, Islam, etc.). But the left just wants revenge against the right – even if Iraq falls apart, and America loses out, they don’t care – their Moral Superiority and IToldYouSo revenge is more important than anything else. The right-wing is more interested in lining their friends’ pockets – and their own – and hiding the fact that they’re interested in absolutely nothing but their own personal fortunes *right now*. Tomorrow can sort itself out.

    There are no longer any patriots.

    A perfect analogy:
    In effect, we have Crassus (the right), Caesar (the Left), and nobodies keeping them apart (Lepidus as libertarians, nutcases, etc.).

    What we need is 20 years of practical government without reference to ideology of any kind.

    The left thinks the money train is endless. You can’t tax yourself to a wealthy society. Redistribution is poison when you’re not generating wealth.

    The right is never interested in sound public policy; they’re always interested in their own fortunes. They only sound publicly-minded to fool you into supporting their private ambitions.

    Welfare: it’s dehumanizing and sucks self-respect and life from communities. You could end all kinds of social problems and social strife by getting rid of it. Replace it with private charity.

    Education: Obviously, we need education. We neither invest sufficiently in education that counts, and over-invest in education that serves no purpose but to produce parasites. I’m not talking about getting rid of humanities. I’m talking about a truly free market.

    Legalities: We’re overly litigious, like the Romans. A few one-two punches and that can be stopped.

    Feminists want equality? Then by gum, give it to them. *ACTUAL* equality. In every sense. I guarantee this: Women will loathe it. They want their privilege but want no responsibilities.

    Give privileges to those who want responsibilities.

    This constant war between left and right does the same thing it did in Rome. And if any one side wins, it’ll be bad.

    The point is: Every issue falls through the crack that emerges from these two sides.

    Had the Roman people listened to the Conspirators and realized that Caesar’s party weren’t going to give them bread without demanding a heavy price, and if the Republicans like Cassius and Brutus and Cicero listened to the masses without dismissing their demands outright, then they might have produced a consensus or common interest that could have saved everyone.

    Instead, we all fight and bicker and bitch and complain and the whole thing slides into the toilet.

    This has happened before. It will happen again. Until we wise up.

    Like


  98. It seems to me that Rome was weakened by Christianity. When Rome was pre-christian, it survived. Then Rome converted to christianity, and a short time later it fell. I don’t know if there was a cause-effect relationship, but it looks suspicious.

    Like


  99. on December 28, 2010 at 5:49 am Boycott American Women

    BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN
    Why American men should boycott American women

    http://boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com/

    I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don’t know how to cook or clean, don’t want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

    American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

    This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.

    BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!

    Like


  100. @Gorby

    By the way, I’ve walked the route the legions were on when they were annihilated. It was incredibly stupid of them to go that way (but they trusted Arminius which is Hermann in German).

    On the right side was a swamp and on the left side was a forested ridge. The Germans were waiting for them in the forested ridge.

    I can imagine a lot of Roman officers were alarmed in the hour or two before the attack. I got the willies walking the same path 2000 years later. There would be no defence position.

    I can see why Varus has been hated for 2000 years by the ghost of Augustus.

    The swamp is gone but it is now low lying land. The ridge is still there of course.

    Over the course of 100 years, the marriage strike and preference for foreign women can indeed change the balance of American power and the location of America’s best men. So it isn’t a stretch to assume something like that happened with ancient Rome.

    I know if I researched this I’d find a lot of Roman men “defecting” to the “Barbarians”. Arminius is a bad example because he was born “Barbarian.”

    It is true that Rome as a city was no longer a place where movers and shakers wanted to operate by the time of the ceremonial sacking (which wasn’t a big deal – Rome was no longer important when it was sacked).

    Just as Vienna ceased, after 1914, to be a place for American women to go to meet attractive bachelor men and was replaced by New York (the Hapsburg Empire had been more attractive to the world’s more ambitious women than than America was), Rome had probably ceased to be the place for the most ambitious young women to meet the most eligible bachelors.

    From what I’ve read, the sacking of Rome was an afterthought. I’m not sure where the hot place was at that time for bachelors. I assume Constantinople.

    Like


  101. Parliaments which have higher number of women lack intelligence and bring inefficiency to the system. Similarly, women who work in judiciary tend to violate justice. Now, when efforts are being made to try rape cases by women judges, don’t know what would happen to convicts. All feminist women should be thrown into Pakistan and Afghanistan then only would understand what it amounts to live under patriarchy.

    Like


  102. Gorbachev, I take your point about the shattering loss of the Christian middle east. But it was western arms that stopped the Muslim juggernaught at Poitiers, and at other later battles: The hordes did not stop of their own accord. Point is, the early medieval period saw the rebirth of western military power.

    Jerry, have you any evidence at all that molten lead was used to punish fornicators? Thought not. Christian Rome (and Byzantium) was pretty relaxed when it came to sex. Historians and contemporary writers talk a lot about adultery and prostitution

    Like


  103. I wonder if it’s actually the cause of civilization downfall, and not one of the many symptoms.

    Of course feminism is an obstacle to monogamism and marriage. And it appears when society collapses. But is it the actual cause of the fall of civilization? Is there any further reading on this?

    Like


  104. cato the elder’s (234 BC, Tusculum – 149 BC) words on Roman women –

    http://bit.ly/hL94Vc

    The above speech was due to this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder#Repeal_of_the_Oppian_law

    The only relevant bit:

    Finally, the women got what they wanted. Tired of the women’s persistent demanding, the dissenting tribunes withdrew their opposition.

    and how feminism caused two world wars:

    http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/hflttww.html

    Like


  105. Except for the incorrect part propagating the myth of the Dark Ages, it is an interesting read. Caused me to add at least two new books to my Amazon Wishlist for later reading when I get some spare money.

    I do not think that the feminism caused the fall of Rome in as much the degradation of society allowed the rise of feminism and matriarchy. It seems to me to be more of a symptom than a cause, but one that aggravated the circunstances nonetheless.

    Like


  106. The anti-male type of feminism is an obstacle to men wanting to stick around. Pro-sex feminism would not be a problem if 25 year old women decided to settle down after hitting the wall and have babies with betas and not punish the betas if they became alpha later on.

    Alphas should be allowed to have babies that don’t cost $225k.

    In alliance with hardline social conservatives, adding “poison pill” provisions to marriage and children, such as the high child support and divorce penalties that social conservative women demand more than feminists do, is what, over 100 years or more, would drive America’s best men elsewhere and, thus, shift the balance of power to where they are.

    I’m not sure if this happened with ancient Rome.

    Like


  107. Marriage 2.0 is the epitome of exploitation of men by women which ultimately forces men to avoid marriage. SIngle mothers and bastards will be common place and bastards do not own loyalty to any nation or society…a country with such people is doomed..

    Like


  108. What about Iceland and the rest of Scandinavia where Feminism is pretty respected and highly regarded? This 2008 article (before the economic crash) states that Iceland has the happiest people. And the article even begins with the facts that it has the highest birth rates in Europe, highest divorce and highest percentage of female workers in Europe :
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/18/iceland

    You are talking maybe about power, so you believe America is losing its world power thanks to feminism? But it is inevitable that China and India will take over as superpowers because of their huge populations and capacity to work and drive a super economy. America cannot really compete in this respect. But are their people happy? Do they have freedoms? …not really. I know where I would rather live out of Sweden or China.

    Like


  109. ”humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave); 12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD.”

    The writer is attacking the Feminist/Liberal perspective by parroting Feminist/Liberal canards about Medieval Europe.

    Before the marvelous ”Enlightenment”, we lived in a ‘Dark Age’ of homophobia, sexism, and religious intolerance, didn’t you know…

    This is why America is fucked. Even the people who purport to hate the status quo unquestioningly accept its historical myths as dogma.

    Like


  110. @ Jerry: you must come to http://voxday.blogspot.com and express all these thoughts you have discussed here. Your take on religion would be very interesting at that blog.

    You. simply. must!

    To our esteemed writer. Great piece.

    Like


  111. Iceland […] has the highest birth rates in Europe, highest divorce and highest percentage of female workers in Europe

    I don’t know a whole lot about Iceland but it seems an outlier. Maybe it is its relative isolation combined with not being a welfare-magnet for third world immigrants?

    America is losing its world power thanks to feminism?

    Feminism is an inevitable product of unchecked capitalism. The industries want women working rather than taking care of the children (to depress the cost of labor) and most importantly, they want women buying trinkets.

    But it is inevitable that China and India will take over as superpowers because of their huge populations

    It’s extremely unlikely. China maybe, especially if they get serious about colonizing Africa and end their one-child policy. But India is like Mexico, except worse. It’s a huge country with different ethnic and religious groups, most being dirt-poor. The “high skill” (ie high IQ) people India is famous for are a razor-thin sliver of its population. The rest of the counrty is, shall we say, low skill. And India is also heading for demographic troubles due to sex-selective abortions.

    Finally, there is something to be said for “if they were meant to be a superpower, it woudl have already happened.” China has shown itself able to be a power, albeit a crude and brutish one, sort of like Russia. But India has always been an invader-sponge.

    and capacity to work and drive a super economy.

    The supereconomy is driven by America, for better and worse. With America backing off, there will be no super economy.

    their people happy? Do they have freedoms?

    Happiness and freedom are very important. But they must be carefully guarded or else they’re lost. Too much freedom and happiness today means none tomorrow, if they are enjoyed irresponsibly.

    I know where I would rather live out of Sweden or China

    The problem with Sweden is that it’s burning through its amassed social capital. It’s like you burning through your credit cards and enjoying an illusion of wealth today, and being bankrupt tomorrow.

    A Swedish child born today is not gong to enjoy his grandparents’ Sweden.

    Like


  112. The one thing that I am curious about is that Islam while a very destructive and ,I believe, sinister religion is one of the most anti – feminist religions in the world. Just wondering how that works I guess

    Like


  113. PA wrote: “Feminism is an inevitable product of unchecked capitalism. The industries want women working rather than taking care of the children (to depress the cost of labor) and most importantly, they want women buying trinkets. ”

    I would like to add: Single mothers HAVE to work so…..encourage single motherhood to keep the women in the workforce. One way to ensure this is to let them believe the don’t need a man to raise a kid.

    Also, let them believe they can “have it all” like a full-time career AND raise a child. This reminds me of a married coworker who was pregnant. As soon as the kid was born she was back at work and shuttling the newborn to a daycare for someone to take care of the baby. I guess the contradiction didn’t compute with her and she was an engineer. This is the same bitch who drank alcohol during her pregnancy and said, “It’s my body and I’ll do what I want.”

    Like


  114. haters gonna hate. don’t get rattled by the negative comments.

    Like


  115. I wonder if autism stems at least in part from mothers dumping thier newborns into daycare. Maybe some infants get a separation-shock that triggers an otherwise-dormant genetic proclivity to arrest its socio-cognitive development.

    Like


  116. and before anyone argues “well corporate tax rates aren’t personal tax rates, they’re different”
    no, they aren’t. tax rates affect consumers no matter where they’re placed. it’s just like the whole argument about how the employer pays half the ss tax and the employee pays the other half… no, the employee pays it all, because his wage is lower than it otherwise would be. the employer doesn’t care who he is giving that money to, the government or his employee, he’s still paying, so once again, the end user consumer/employee loses from a tax that the employer is supposedly paying.
    same with corporate tax rates, prices are higher than they’d other be.

    Like


  117. PA: “Feminism is an inevitable product of unchecked capitalism. The industries want women working rather than taking care of the children (to depress the cost of labor) and most importantly, they want women buying trinkets.”

    I had never thought of it like that…quite possibly true. The Soviet Union placed great emphasis on women working to increase the power and might of the USSR. My father who is Eastern European laments what the Soviet government did to the family unit and the effects are still there now.

    Like


  118. on December 28, 2010 at 10:46 am greatbooksformen GBFM

    lzozlzozozlz buttehehxtxtxuakl!!!

    zlzozolzlzlozozozzol

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/when-youre-on-a-date-know-taht-the-girl-is-working-for-the-federal-reserve-during-destert-that-is-ben-bernanke-or-tucker-max-she-is-texting-or-maybe-me-lzozllzllzlz/

    when you’re on a date know taht the girl is working for the federal reserve & during destert that is ben bernanke or tucker max she is texting… or maybe me lzozllzllzlz
    last chcik i hooked up with shared this rap with me:

    i gots my fiat cash from ben bernake,
    gettin’ my dinner from the herb beta,
    texting GBFM for a midnight spank me,
    i don’t butthex, but i’m no playa hata

    lzozllzllzlzlzl

    when you’re on a date know taht the girl is working for the federal reserve as she is trying 2 get you to pay for gaining access to the pussy she gave away for free lots in college when she was younger hotter tighter during all the mandatory pre-cats-spinsterhood prima noctae deosuling sessions, in teh same way the fed gets you to bail out the banks who just gambled your pensions savings away when they were younger hooter tighter… or somethihnng… you get my drift .. unless you are a betadipshit lzozlzlzl

    lozlzllzlzllz

    from an early age womenz are deosuled by over sexulization of briteny spears mileyly cyrus bratz dolls lozlzlzlzlzlzlz as ocmmanded by the fed which must desoul women to make them less loyal t2 god husband family lzozlzl and more loyal 2 the fed lzozllzl and the almighty fiat dollar (which is basless debt zlzozlzlzlz). a fiat system inverts all of entirety exalting secretive tapoers of butthex to the pinnacles of publsihing, while deconstructing teh great books anbd classics lzozllzlzlzl

    so when you are out with a womenz buying her dinner chances are

    0) she is working for the fed lzozlzl what do you think law shcool business school trains womenz 2 do? to serve teh almighty fiat dollar above all else lzozllzzl and use buzzwords and short skirts to convert fiat debt into physical welath and property as teh fiat debt trickles on down and the phsyical wleath ghushes on up lzozlzlllzlzl ever wonder why goldman sax rhymes with tucker max & gets richer and richer as poeple get poorer and poorer and teh national debt grows and grows? someone must be spenidng the money that is augmenting the debt for everyone else lzozllzz and that would be goldman sachs and the warfare and welfare states it funds, alongside fmeinism, which denies a women her greater chance for glorya nd story and uses her temptress wiles to help the fiat masters convert fiat debt into property lzozlzlzl. poor ladies they end up butter and alone and soulless with cats as teh fed goes lzozlzlzlzlllzllzlzlzlzl women’s right to choose!!
    1) someone had her hotter younger tighter for free and you are now buying her dinner
    2) she was deosuled in secrteive tpaings of assoccking sessions taped without her conthent which the neocns are fond of lzozlzll
    3) when she texts during dinner she is setting up plans for a midnight assocking sessiomn with an alpha who creates welath from thin air someone like the head of the fed who wires it to goldman sax which rhymes witgh tucker max lozlzllzlzl who gets book deals from women-riun publishing houses like simon ans shcuster lzolzlzl because tehy dleight in his debt-creating debuachery-creating art succeth of losing ten million on a twelve million film as well as his asscocking sessions and secretiev tapings of butthex iwthout their girlsths contehnt which he publishes for both neocon pleaseure and profit lzozlzllz
    4) if you do get married 2 her there is a fifty percent chance it will end in divroce. lolzlzl would you get on airplane if it crashed 50% of the time? lzozlzllzlzlo hell no!! and what if, after it crashed bevcause your wife was fucking some biker drummer mba in teh cockpit (as he put his cock in her cock pit lzozlzl), what if after she cuased it to crash, you had to give her half your assets and begin paying for past use of her pussy? lzozllzllzlzl plus by going down once the plane will have gone down more times than your wife once she is married–dats a joke! lzozlzllzllz
    5) 2/3 to 3/4 of womenz initiate divorce as it transfers a mans assett s to teh fed/divorce regime as womenz are trianed to do in school with promises of her ex husband having to pay alimonies for past use of a pussy and fund and reward her further asscocking sessions tthat hshe hand’t had since college but whcih she missed dearly lzozlzlzloz (once back never back! lzozlzl or once in the back door, nver back! or you make your own joke here lzozllzlzzl i hate puns) she will get full rights 2 the kids and take them with her for her array of step boyfirends/fathers 2 abuse as abuse skyrockets in fmailies where the real dad is absent lzozlzlzlzlzllz, which is why the fiat neooncs detest fatherhood and the heoric spriit zlozllzlzl and love womenz who “tame men” lzozlzlzl and keep them from accessing tehir Natural Rights lzozlzl
    6) rising womenz generlaly make more than men these days as they are paid in fiat dollars which really only create debt and so it is that womenz excel at creating debt and they call this wokr lzolzllzlzlzl so let them buy some fiat dinners and drinks with their fiat dollarz lzozlzll

    seriously do u guys still date?

    Like


  119. on December 28, 2010 at 10:47 am greatbooksformen GBFM

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/how-da-university-works-feminism-debt-debauchery-divorce-desecration-machinearmy-lzozlzlzlzlzl/

    how da university works: feminism = debt & debauchery & divorce & Desecration machine/army lzozlzlzlzlzlgh weo
    lzozlzlzlzlzlzlzlzlzlzozllzlz

    univeristies are at the tip (tit lzozlzlzoz) of our debt empire

    over the past thirty years or so univeristies desouled women in prima noctae assocking sessins (some of tehm secretly taped iwthout thei girls conthent as the neocons like it best) and they sent the army forth to 1) transfer assetts form menz, 2) destory the family, 3) murder 50,000,000 unborn innocent souls, 4) hype and sell sub prime loans while wearing short skirts lzozlzlzlzllzlzlz 5) lure men into marriage iwth their coconpirators the ministers who front the legal system that does what no pimp would wever do–charge men for past use of a pussy lzolsoslslslslslslslslsls

    the fembot army;s main corporate state job is to create debt debauchery destiutution debt divorce deconstruction and devastation lzozlzlzlz

    and they have succeeded!! lzozlzlzlzlzlzl

    today our debt deficit will be greater than the gnp!!!!1

    the feminsimt movement cooinnded with the largest greatest increase of debt ever known to namankinds lzozlzlzlzl this is because womenz who stamp their little feet and bitch and complain and tranfer and destory welath and say “me me m em e more material welath for me me me me for my gina!!!! it’s for the children (even though women aborted/killed/vacuumed 50,000,000 fetuss by their choice alone) lzozlzlz it takes a village–fund my village where we get to bang alphas and the betas pay for it whether we cuckold them in tehir homes or via the welfare state zlozlzozlzzlzl” and they bitch and complain and talk about handbags and butthex and twilight vampires and enocurage girls to long for and lust after undead bloodsucking vampire twilight monsters and butthexing douchebags and otehr things which make their bginas tingle repalced menz at univeristies menz who built invent iengineer buuikld invent reason truth write great books read great bookz think lzozlzl eb=engineer lzozlzlzozlzl replaced exaltation eand greatness with bdebt debuachery destitution lzozlz

    short beta men rose fast in teh unievristy as they were handed fiat bernanke cash fronm helicopter ben and they used it to surrpound themselves with syocphantic harems of womenze as all teh betas love honor worship tucker max their ultimate master because he rhymes with goldman sax and also he butthexes girls and films it woithout teh girlths ocnthent and the weekly stanadrd neocns repeat his lies lzozlzlzlzzl that he is six foot tall zlozzlzllzlzlzlzl honoring their #1 butthexual hero lzozlzlzl

    so anyeways teh fiat masters trianed owmen in the arts of divorce debuachery deseefxation destruction lozlzolzlzlz and abortion and debt creation, and as womenze rose to power on teh ffront lines of the epreemptive wars against teh unborn they murdered 50,000,000 since rose vs. wade they deconstructed and debuached tehc ulture on campuses as when yhou put womenze in charge it soons becomes all butthex all the time as priscilia paintion woemnze editor in chief of simon and schuster is publishing tucker max’s next book zlzolslssslslsoslsoslzozlzlzlzlz c hecks che-=checks it out peoples are saying and speaking out about the way womenze are debucahing defiling and butthexing the culture lozlzlzlzlzl:

    http://community.feministing.com/2009/09/why-are-female-executives-publ.html

    Why are Female Executives Publishing Tucker Max?

    Saw this floating around. good question!

    MCCOY MOUNTAIN
    ART, FILM, & LITERATURE GUILD OF AMERICA

    Ms. Priscilla Painton

    Simon & Schuster Editor in Chief

    RE: ASSHOLES FINISH FIRST, Secretive Tapings of Anal Sex without The Girl’s Consent, Corporate Douchebaggery, and the Epic Failure of I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell

    Despite the fact that teenagers nationwide are going to hear gem pick-up lines like “get away from me or I’m going to carve another fuck hole in your torso”, what truly crowns this film as an epic fail is its apologetic attempt to masquerade gratuity as an Apatovian bromance. –http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/we-hope-you-can-still-get-alcohol-poisoning-in-hell/Content?oid=1291260

    “Little Italy is fighting back against Tucker Max ‘s controversial ad campaign . Yeah, that poster on the right says, “Blind Girls Never See You Coming.” Va fan culo, indeed.” –http://gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php

    Dear Ms. Painton,

    I and my colleagues in the ART, FILM & LITERATURE GUILD have a couple questions regarding the direction you are taking Simon and Schuster in. Why are you guys/gals hating on art, literature, culture and America? It was recently brought to our attention that you are intent on publishing Tucker Max’s ASSHOLES FINISH FIRST, and that your company actually gave him a $300,000 advance for his fart art. As the editor in chief of Simon and Schuster, owned the CBS corporation, do you truly believe Assholes Finish First? It is oft said that girls like “bad boys.” Does Tucker’s fart art douchebag wit titillate and excite you? Is that why you are publishing and profiting from it? Did you laugh during Tucker’s recent film flop when what’s-his-name stated that overweight women aren’t real people? Do you smile smugly when your billion-dollar corporation profits from douchebaggery?

    http://gawker.com/5363233/tucker-maxs-campaign-of-hate-against-chicagos-transit-system “The ads were poetic ditties of white text on a black background . Like: “Blind girls never see you coming” and “Strippers Will Not Tolerate Disrespect (Just Kidding).””

    “Over at the Washington, D.C., premiere, Max’s video minion ridicules both Vietnamese and African-American women, the former for being employed as a pedicurist, and the latter for having a name he finds funny.”

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/10/spot-your-local-tucker-max-douchebag/

    Do you enjoy profiting from making fun of Asians and overweight women? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040

    http://tuckermaxdoucebag.blogspot.com

    http://tuckermaxlies.blogspot.com

    Does this make you laugh Ms. Painton? It is not too late to choose the right direction for Simon and Schuster and CBS and walk away from publishing Assholes Finish First . At most it will bring in a few pennies, which will lead everyone to conclude that you and CBS aren’t in it for the money, but just the debauchery and destruction of the culture. As Tucker Max pointed out, the feminist movement empowered women and gave them the right to choose the art they affiliated with and promote. So now, with all the power in your hands, what will you chose on behalf of women all over the world? Please do us proud and choose the right thing.

    “The ad campaign for the new flick “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” includes slogans like “Deaf Girls Can’t Hear You Coming” and “Strippers Will Not Tolerate Disrespect (Just Kidding!).””

    –http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/New-Movie-Ads-Take-Offensive-to-the-Max-59695522.html

    Why is corporate America, under your direction Ms. Painton, forcing epic “Richard Kelly” fail fart art and film on the common public? Do you also find secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent to be entertaining and titillating art?

    http://gawker.com/5363233/tucker-maxs-campaign-of-hate-against-chicagos-transit-system

    Let’s talk for a sec about something Tucker glamorizes and pretends is funny in his ‘book’: filming a naked women in his bedroom without her consent. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that while he’s doing this he is coaxing the girl to have anal sex with him, an exploitative act that a guy like him probably especially enjoys.

    –http://www.bitchmagazine.org/post/douchebag-decree-marketing-tucker-max

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/11/the-rapiest-quotes-from-i-hope-they-serve-beer-in-hell/

    “OK, we can try anal sex , but I want it to be special and romantic. …. process: I was going to fuck her in the butt and film it without her consent ,” — http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/date/tucker_tries_buttsex_hilarity_does_not_ensue.phtml

    Do you and the CBS Corporation find this entertaining? As you know, sodomy is a sin in the Old Testament as is sex out of wedlock and fornication. What is your motivation in working with those who promote and profit from secretive tapings of anal sex?

    Do you find such “literature” and “art” to be representative of Simon and Schuster and CBS?

    “In one of his most notorious pieces, he convinces a girl to have anal sex and tapes it without her consent.” — http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/08/tucker_max/

    Despite the fact that teenagers nationwide are going to hear gem pick-up lines like “get away from me or I’m going to carve another fuck hole in your torso”, what truly crowns this film as an epic fail is its apologetic attempt to masquerade gratuity as an Apatovian bromance. –http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/we-hope-you-can-still-get-alcohol-poisoning-in-hell/Content?oid=1291260

    Ms. Painton–do you find that entertaining? Is it good literature? Do you consider demeaning stories about having sex with midgets good literature? Do you consider it good business to make fun of Asians, overweight women, and minorities so as to bolster your bottom line?

    What is driving you to publish Assholes Finish First ? What are your motivations? Money? America does not want Tucker Max, as demonstrated this past weekend at the boxoffice. Do you find these signs to be entertaining/a good CBS investment?

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/15/tucker-max-fans-fight-rape-with-racism/

    Is Tucker Max’s fan base the group that Simon & Schuster is seeking to serve under your leadership?

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/14/tucker-max-too-sexist-for-ad-space/

    It seems that America believes otherwise as Richard Kelly and Tucker Max’s I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell has proven to be a colossal artistic and financial failure.

    “Not faring so well, however, was the Tucker Max adaptation I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, which took in $369,000 from 120 theaters with a well-below-average $3,075 per-screen average.” — http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEdXykfeBDXwhe

    So Priscilla, please tell us about your douchetastic love affair with Tucker Max and his fart art. Does it really titillate you as a woman and feminist? Say it isn’t so! Is this good Simon and Schuster/CBS branding? Why did your massive billion-dollar corporation reward Tucker with a $300,000 advance?

    “Little Italy is fighting back against Tucker Max ‘s controversial ad campaign . Yeah, that poster on the right says, “Blind Girls Never See You Coming.” Va fan culo, indeed.” –http://gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php

    Does CBS and Simon & Schuster approve of registering fake email accounts to promote stories regarding secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent?

    ” The lack of traditional plugs forced Max to promote his web site and book via the internet. He would create fake e-mail accounts and then bombard entertainment sites and news aggregators with links to his material.” — http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/11/tucker_max_sxsw/

    For this, your billion-dollar corporation rewarded Tucker with a $300,000 advance.

    “Max may have to concentrate on his agent style business moving forward because he’s running out of material. He’s received a $300,000 advance for a second version of his drunken, sexual exploits – a tome that will contain the stories not ripe enough for the first cut.” — http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/11/tucker_max_sxsw/

    Are you proud of Simon & Schuster and your corporation? Funding and encouraging hype, failure, douchebaggery, debauchery, lies, secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent, and making fun of Asians, overweight women, and minorities. Is that what attracts you to Tucker Max, or is it the epic artistic and financial failure of his film?

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_hope_they_serve_beer_in_hell/

    “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell fails in its attempts at raunchy humor, and Tucker Max comes across so unlikable and outrageous that the film’s inevitable story arc feels forced.”

    It is not too late to choose the right direction for Simon and Schuster and walk away from publishing Assholes Finish First .

    Best,

    McCoy Mountain & The ART, FILM & LITERATURE GUILD

    –http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040

    Will Priscilla Painton at Simon & Shuster still Publish *beep* Finish First?

    the title makes no sense. *beep* might finish first in some silly women’s eyes, but they epic fail in reality, as demonstrated by tucker’s epic fart art film fail, which priscilla painton is pretendning not to notice.

    What’s up with women these days?

    It seems the more they run things, the more they try to force douchebag fart art on everyone:

    Former ‘Time’ Exec. Relieves Venerable Editor Mayhew At Simon & Schuster

    http://gawker.com/5002333/former-time-exec-relieves-venerable-editor-mayhew-at-simon–schuster

    Anywho, does Priscilla Painton at Simon & Shuster have a personal vendetta against asians, minorities, overweight women, and little people?

    Does she think tucker’s ads are cute and humorous?

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/New-Movie-Ads-Take-Offensive-to-the-Max-59695522.html

    Does she get off on this?

    “The ad campaign for the new flick “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” includes slogans like “Deaf Girls Can’t Hear You Coming” and “Strippers Will Not Tolerate Disrespect (Just Kidding!).”

    Is that supposed to be funny?” –http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/New-Movie-Ads-Take-Offensive-to-the-Max-59695522.html

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/10/spot-your-local-tucker-max-douchebag/

    Is this the new face and culture of simon and schuster?

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/15/tucker-max-fans-fight-rape-with-racism/

    Does Priscilla Painton at Simon and Schuster giggle at secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent and also this:

    http://www.penguinblogs.ca/davidson/archives/00000079.html

    http://tuckermaxlies.blogspot.com/2008/08/sillylittlefreak.html

    http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/date/the_absinthe_donuts_story.phtml

    “11:17: The girl starts saying something about what a horrible person I am. I stare at her, but I am not listening. I am preparing myself. I am B-Rabbit. This is the final battle rap. I will win the hostile crowd:

    [I interrupt the fat girl] “Ward, I think you’re being a little hard on the Beaver, [as I point to each in turn] so is Eddie Haskell, Wally, and Miss Cleaver.”

    [To the fat guy with greasy hair in the camo vest] “Look out everyone! It’s the Pillsbury Commando! Hey Chunk, when was the last time you washed your hair? Does it give you more hit points to have that grease helmet? I hate to break the news, but +5 defense only counts in Dungeons and Dragons.”

    [To the ugly Asian girl] “Why you no rike me? You want me frip over? You no piss me off! ME FIND YOU IN POCKING ROT!! YOU NO TAKE MING ARIVE!!”

    [To the small frail dork–I notice he has a lazy eye] “Dude–Look at me when I’m talking to you–BOTH EYES AT ONCE. Are you really this ugly or are you just playing? EVERYONE, BE CAREFUL, THIS GUY LURKS UNDER THE STAIRS AND TRIES TO LICK YOUR SHOES WHEN YOU PASS BY!”

    [To the original fatty, pause for effect] “Why do you do this to yourself? WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO YOURSELF? Look, I’m gonna give you some advice-leave the party, take the geek squad with you, go to Denny’s, order about 10 Grand Slam Breakfasts, and eat your pain away. Won’t be the first time will it?”

    11:19: I am finished. The kitchen is quiet, except for Eddie and Rich laughing. The four freaks are completely speechless. Everyone is staring at me. I blurt out, “WHAT? I’m pretty sure it’s what Jesus would’ve done.” Eddie and Rich promptly remove me from the kitchen.”

    Is Priscilla Painton publishing tucker’s next book for the love of literature, art, or money?

    ‘Cause it seems that those who work with tucker generally hate and lose literature, art, and money.

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

    http://www.theladyfinger.com/2009/09/tucker-max-brings-his-misogyny-to-big.html

    “What ensues, according the film’s trailer, is alcohol-fueled misogynistic mayhem. Max has sex with several women, including, to his smug satisfaction, a dwarf.”

    See? That is the clever banker ruse.

    Have women such as Priscilla fund and promote it, while others protest it, enriching the bankers as marriage is destroyed and the state is grown.

    http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

    “A Site about the Divorce Regime, Family Court Corruption,
    and Government’s War on Fathers”

    “The divorce regime is the most totalitarian institution ever to arise in the United States. Its operatives in the family courts and the social service agencies recognize no private sphere of life. “The power of family court judges is almost unlimited,” according to Judge Robert Page of the New Jersey family court. “Social workers are perceived to have nearly unlimited power,” a San Diego Grand Jury concludes. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Total immunity [enjoyed by social workers] is absolute power.”

    The divorce regime is responsible for much more than “ugly divorces,” “nasty custody battles,” and other clichés. It is the most serious perpetrator of human and constitutional rights violations in America today. Because it strikes the most basic institution of any civilization – the family – the divorce regime is a threat not only to social order but to civil freedom. It is also almost completely unopposed. No political party and no politicians question it. No journalists investigate it in any depth. A few attorneys have spoken out, but they are eventually suspended or disbarred. Some academics have written about it, but they soon stop. No human rights or civil liberties groups challenge it, and some positively support it. Very few “pro-family” lobbies question it. This is because the divorce regime operates through money, political power, and fear.” — http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

    –http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040

    Have you seen/read END THE FED by Ron Paul? “Everyone must read this book–Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans–all Americans.”
    –Vince Vaughn

    When you think about it, Tucker Max was the Fed’s ultimate creation–a soulless, debased douchebag:

    “My name is Tucker Max, and I am an *beep*

    Think about it–Tucker’s motto @ http://tuckermax.com could be the Fed’s motto:
    “I get excessively drunk via inflating the currency at inappropriate times, disregard social norms (funding feminism/debauchery & debasement of the family/currency/culture/tucker max(educated at the Fed’s University of Chicago’s School of Economics (school of freakanomics) and Duke scholarship)), indulge every whim/war, ignore the consequences of my actions/bubbles/bailouts, fund idiots and posers and tucker-max-like CEOs, sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable/luring them with fiat currency & a fiat-funded bus, and just generally act like a raging darko/douchebag/dickhead.”

    What do you think of Ron Paul’s new book–End the Fed?

    http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193/

    Review for End The Fed
    “Rarely has a single book not only challenged, but decisively changed my mind. “
    –Arlo Guthrie

    “Everyone must read this book–Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans–all Americans.”
    –Vince Vaughn

    Vince Vaughn is a far, far better actor/director/writer than Tucker Max, so it makes sense that Tucker and his jealous friends at the Fed detest Arlo Guthrie and Vince Vaughan as well as art, film, and literature.

    The book has much better reviews and is far-higher ranked than Tucker’s douchey books/film/trailer–Five solid stars!

    Why do you donnie darko douchos/cbs haterz hate on art, the Constitution, morality, goodness, sound money, peace, prosperity, love, the family, kindness, and Ron Paul so much?

    And like the Fed, tucker privatizes all the profits of his private jet while sharing all the risk with his volunteer employees, who work for free.

    “Feminism which espoused “women’s rights” actually has driven femininity underground, torn the sexes asunder, and stripped woman of recognition for being wives and mothers, roles essential to their own fulfillment, to men, and to children and society.” –http://www.savethemales.ca/

    http://www.amazon.com/Save-Males-Matter-Women-Should/dp/1400065798

    Like


  120. As I keep telling people, don’t confuse America with Western Civilization but I think he is choosing a cause and trying to shoehorn history from 265 BC to 500 CE into it.

    The Roman period of maximum political influence was only reached by putting fifteen per cent of its population into the army and keeping them in uniform for 25 years at a time. Now, the economy was different back then as there was little economic activity beyond basic goods manufacturing but that’s hardly a tenable political project for a 21st century economy.

    Moreover, among the reasons for the contraction of the Roman state were the problem facing any institution: no political system is completely elastic. The institutions created for managing a city were forced to become governing bodies for a state stretching from Ireland to Persia and it exhausted people.

    Finally, the army became the arbiter of power. What ever legate happened to be in charge of the army on the Rhine was chosen to head the Roman state, and this led to an endless parade of assassinations because heading an army doesn’t require the same set of skills as managing a massive civil service and political system with all of the compromises that are part of the currency needed to make the system work.

    The Roman state began its internal collapse when its political structures failed it. Like Hitler’s loss of WW2, the reasons for Rome’s collapse are a popular target for amateur historians who have a grand unified theory and have found a few nails upon which to hang it; but, sorry, the truth is a lot more banal and complex than this.

    Like


  121. @Sara:

    You can lead a women to comment but you can’t make her think…

    Like


  122. The comments in this blog used to be a cool little add on with some interesting ideas, now its just a garbage dump. You’re too popular now.

    “unchecked capitalism” in the united states? maybe I’m living in a different united states, but my business (auto salvage) is more regulated here than anywhere else in the world. I talk to and deal with scrappers in china, in germany, and in brazil… the US is absurdly regulated.
    People who don’t run businesses always talk about how terrible capitalism is, or how we have “unchecked capitalism” in the US. once you experience the private sector first hand you start to realize its all bullshit. We have higher corporate tax rates than france. learn more people.

    Like


  123. Did the roman empire ever have dirty nuclear bombs decimating entire cities? These gamechangers will put everything into a new perspective, as it will bring about a new awakening a lot faster than the slow rot of the old RE.

    Like


  124. @ Science

    Its not unchecked capitalism, but simple prosperity coupled with generational narcissism, which started during the pre-WWI era with the suffrage movement, prohibition and all the other Progressive ideas that are killing us today. Women’s “rights” plus material wealth equals end of a state.

    Like


  125. The Suffragettes were often little more than terrorists. Then, after winning the right to vote against the will of the majority of British men, these same activists turned around and gave white feathers to all males on the street during World War One, even soldiers home on leave, as a way of calling them cowards for not being off in the muddy fields of Belgium looking for their left leg.

    Like


  126. @ Jerry

    Female-supported war. The ultimate shit test.

    Like


  127. Iceland may have happy people, but all those happy people programs caused an economic meltdown.

    Like


  128. I’m using “unchecked capitalism” as shorthand for neoconnish globalism, which in turn is shorthand for the government-corporate complex and its two puppet political parties.

    Like


  129. @ PA

    Ah. So corporatism. The one thing the fascists had totally wrong.

    Like


  130. This was an excellent post. I really enjoyed it. I too have wondered about Babylon, Assyria, Hattusha (The Hittites), Greece, and Rome.

    There apparenlty is evidence of some extremely ancient advanced civiliztions in the jungles of South America also,
    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/02/22/finding_the_lost_city/

    This picture really is eye-opening:

    http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/284-ancient-civilization-discovered-in-amazon.html

    (That site has some opinions on it I dont necessarily agree with, but that article was indeed interesting)

    Like


  131. If GBFM doesn’t deserve a Nobel Prize in economics, no one does.

    Like


  132. Krugman: “Investing with future dollars will help create a future world where…”

    GBFM: “Suckka my cokka, fukka! llzozlzlzlzlzlzlzlzlzlzozllzlz!”

    WINNER, GBFM!

    Like


  133. That was the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern thrived until Constantinople was taken by the Muslims in the 15th Century. Also, the Dark Ages were not exactly dark – in many ways you can’t even say they existed in England.

    Like


  134. @ Zinc

    They kind of did up to 1066, but that’s only if you think tribal living is a bad thing.

    Like


  135. “The USA hasn’t yet divested itself of any outlying provinces.”

    Panama Canal Zone. Thinking more broadly, the U.K. (Anglosphere, “Western Civilization”) gave up HK. Also, the U.S. has been relinquishing conquered territories since the end of WWII – Japan and the Philippines come immediately to mind.

    Consider that modern birth control means that population collapse will likely come more quickly for us than for the Romans.

    The hour is later than you think.

    And for those commentators who say that the Romans had a mere nuts-and-bolts “Barbarian problem”: The Romans didn’t have any trouble *building* their empire, but they couldn’t *keep* it. This suggests their problems were not external, but internal. A failure of will. The feminization of society.

    And @Sara:

    “What about Iceland and the rest of Scandinavia where Feminism is pretty respected and highly regarded? This 2008 article (before the economic crash) states that Iceland has the happiest people.”

    That’s the (unintentionally) funniest parenthetical I’ve read all week. Yeah, let’s just pretend that little global economic meltdown didn’t happen, and talk about the wonders of feminist society. (BTW: Iceland’s TFR is 2.05 — already below replacement. Everything you believe in will die.)

    Like


  136. Thank you for your apt and original posting. While I have some doubts as to the thesis of the title (I think feminism is more an effect of the decadence of our present society, rather than its cause), there is no doubt that the U.S.A. is presently a decadent society. Your comparison of the Roman Empire with present circumstances is spot on.

    Of course, I see exactly why you have pulled the plug on comments to other of your postings, especially in this case. While the alphas among your readers have largely agreed with you, and have in some cases given some useful additional information and perspectives (I particularly valued Gorbachev’s comments, and the two who cited Sir John Glubb), the betas, as usual, are in denial, and the gammas through omegas are either chattering off the point or scratching their heads and saying the equivalent of “huh?”

    I note that it is only the alpha plusses who are asking the following two questions: Since this is the case: (1) how can I benefit from this; and (2) how can we act to prevent this?

    If one is only concerned with how one can benefit from the present situation, I would suggest developing one’s alpha skills to obtain as much money/capital/power as one can, and leaving to a place where one can enjoy it. So far, Australia and New Zealand look good. At least, until the Peoples Republic of China decides to invade. I give that prospect at least 10-20 years. And one can also learn to speak Mandarin, to cozy one’s self with one’s future rulers. This website should help you with that effort:

    http://fsi-language-courses.org/Content.php?page=Chinese

    But if one is concerned with actually helping keep the American Republic from becoming a decadent empire, I would suggest developing those alpha skills to learn history, political theory, languages (at present, Chinese, Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, and the other critical political languages); martial arts and military skills; and, of course, mathematics and science.

    In case you haven’t noticed, there is a great war coming. The follies of our so-called leaders for the last three decades have made that inevitable. The choices are either to have escaped to a place where that won’t immediately happen (see above), to be cannon fodder, or to be in a position in which one can be of some help. Your choice.

    And the rest of you can go back to your chattering and games now.

    Like


  137. I like reading how everyone can encapsulate in a blog post the entire history of Rome, with all its subtleties, nuances and unanswered questions, and from its beginning to fall, which covers more than a thousand year period, and then compare that to U.S. political and cultural history, etc. I feel so enlightened.

    It is quite an accomplishment. Truly, the blogoshere is the greatest intellectual advancement of the last five hundred years.

    @Andy: “the truth is a lot more banal and complex than this.”

    This is true. The America as modern Rome motif is worn out. There are far more differences than similarities and too many sloppy parallels are too often made.

    Like


  138. @Gorbachev, Thursday, Jerry

    Unwin and Glubb’s work doesn’t look to the root cause. I believe that land is the only source of wealth. All men should have some, it should be inheritable only, and sale of land (transfer between men) should not be allowed except on a limited lease basis.

    This gives men the financial basis to attract women; women need somewhere to live. It also gives the man something to work for; develop the land, and his sons will inherit it. He can use his daughters as leverage to get better/prettier women for his sons. (or himself)

    Like


  139. @Anonymous44
    @Gorbachev, Thursday, Jerry
    Unwin and Glubb’s work doesn’t look to the root cause. I believe that land is the only source of wealth. All men should have some, it should be inheritable only, and sale of land (transfer between men) should not be allowed except on a limited lease basis.
    This gives men the financial basis to attract women; women need somewhere to live. It also gives the man something to work for; develop the land, and his sons will inherit it. He can use his daughters as leverage to get better/prettier women for his sons. (or himself)</I.

    That … is interesting.

    In an advanced economy where land is not as valuable — don't see how this is useful.

    Like


  140. Anonymous44

    “What Christianity did to the Western Roman empire,
    Islam did to the Byzantine. When the time is right,
    another will rise, and it will confer selective advantage
    on those that follow it, because they will breed like rabbits
    and attract recruits like crazy. Possibly because they
    will restore the traditional offer of quality poon,
    WITH guarantees of fidelity.”

    OOPS. Islam does all that. And I still find it detestable.
    But it is a religion highly optimized for bands of
    caravan raiders (although ships off Somalia will do).

    @Trimegistus:
    “If you want to draw a parallel to Rome, this isn’t the fall,
    this is the end of the Republic and the start of the Empire.
    Indeed, at some point some Democratic politician will realize
    that by conquering other countries he can bring home loot
    to buy votes with, and suddenly every liberal will be all
    fired up for military glory.”

    That works – for a short time, until you run out of victims
    (cf. Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher). The National
    Socialists in Germany had this down pat. Up through
    circa the autumn of 1942, life in Germany was
    quite pleasant, financed by looting conqured countries
    – and the Jews and some others. Pleasant, unless
    you belonged to one of the “out” groups, OR
    you were actually fighting at the front OR you
    were some kind of political dissident.

    And remember, it is fun while it lasts, which is not
    very long. Remember, in modern times things play
    out a lot faster….

    DARK AGES

    As somebody pointed out, not so dark. The typical
    peasant was probably no worse off. Economic
    efficiency suffered, but there were fewer power
    hungry authorties to feed.

    SCANDINAVIA
    @sara
    Scandinavia?
    Well, Scandinavia is feminist, EXCEPT that men
    who get divorced do NOT get clobbered the
    way they are in US/UK/Canada.

    AUTISM

    I strongly suspect that the rise in autism is a
    function of “better” diagnosis, or of simply
    lowering the bar. Autism carries a lot of
    subsidies, so there is plenty of incentive
    to find it.

    CORPORATE TAX RATES

    Indeed paid in the end by the consumer, or
    the employees, only slightly by the owners.
    BUT of course, when you can import stuff from
    countries with lower tax rates, the consumer
    does not get hammered, but the employees
    and the owners do. And the economy as a
    whole, in the long run, as manufacturing
    and even services get outsourced.

    WOMEN AND DAYCARE

    The wonders of daycare is not so much that
    there are more women to tax. The wonder
    is the state gets its claws into the children
    EARLY. Ignatius Loyala would applaud.

    Thor

    Like


  141. @Gorbachev In an advanced economy where land is not as valuable — don’t see how this is useful.

    I’ve worked with and been mentored by the men who worked with the men that invented the Internet, and many other technologies we use today. I’ve been in tech for a long time, at a senior engineer level. I know all about our “advanced” economy.

    And at the end of the day, it really does boil down to land. That is the foundation. Without land, you are just a highly paid prole.

    The security of having property that is protected by the entire society, that will pass down to your sons… that is worth fighting for and defending. And the man who doesn’t fight, doesn’t fuck, to misquote a famous political theorist.

    It is the accumulation of land into a few hands that turns most men into pewling betas. Betas are betas because they lack the FOUNDATION of male power; land that they can pass on to their children.

    In societies were land is a commodity rather than an inheritance, it doesn’t have so much value; the next generation may just sell it. Or you may sell it yourself for a an all out orgy before you die.

    But all wealth does, ultimately, come from the ground. Transistors? The ground. Electric power? The ground. What do the power lines run over? Land. Where are hydro dams built? On land that has water running through it. Where does coal come from? The ground. Where does food come from? The ground. Where does lumber come from? Land. You see my point? Advanced technology does NOT change this fundamental of male power.

    Like


  142. And smarter men will get more from their land; a really smart man might build a university. Another might just be content with cultivating peonies. The smarter man will lease the dumber mans land; both will benefit.

    When you have land that is inalienable, then your human creativity knows no bounds. If you always have to work for a rent or mortgage cheque, then your creativity is shackled to the whims of the oligarchs. That is as beta (or omega) as it gets.

    Better to be an alpha on one acre, than a pampered beta slave overseeing 1000 acres.

    Like


  143. Anonymous44 wrote,

    “Possibly because they will restore the traditional offer of quality poon, WITH guarantees of fidelity.”

    Is there any historical precedent for quality poon with guarantees of fidelity? Before the alpha cock carousel of the past couple of decades as a motivator, chicks in the U.S. – at least since I’ve been old enough to be aware – didn’t look nearly as hot.

    Like


  144. I should add that the more extreme disparity in wealth has probably also been a motivating factor for women in looking good.

    Like


  145. Quality meaning, healthy, ok body shape, willing and able to produce children without dropping dead. Make-up and miniskirts, not so much. But my taste has always been for women who are so hot they look good without makeup… and who are self-confident enough to go without makeup. For the rest of you guys, sorry! 🙂

    Like


  146. Chicks in the USA DID look as good as the ones today. But the hot ones weren’t the ones in porno flicks; they had “options”, they could land a rich guy, committed for life, and have more $$ plus social status and esteem than the sluts that went in for porno. It is the sluts and porno that didn’t use to look so good; not the good women.

    Like


  147. @desiderius

    Oh so power is now based on who is on the supreme court? I guess those Hispanics really do have a lot of say now don’t they? Don’t forget politics run on money, it really doesn’t matter who votes in D.C. as long as the vote is bought for already. Also looking at the track record of the recent supreme court isn’t really saying much to your argument.

    Nice try… not.

    Like


  148. Empires grow on the basis of a valorous public spirit, raw aggression, and finding a way to make tons of money from the resulting expansion of territory and influence. After expansion, the lots of money can buy a lot of “cooperation” from would be trouble.makers. In the case of Rome, they dealt with the over-the-alps Germans, Celts, etc. quite easily for at least 300 years. Often, they just offered the best of their leaders citizenship and gold to do Romes bidding. It nearly always worked.
    When Rome lost access to its grain and cash cow in N. Africa in the late 4th century it began its count-down to insolvency. Roman armies (made up eventually of mostly forner barbarians) plus massive gold payments was found to be adequate to deal with the non-Roman barbarians for 3-400 years. The frontiers fell apart right away when the gold stopped arriving. Until then the system had worked OK for about 3 centuries.
    But without Gold in their pockets the loyalty of barbarian legions could go either way, and usually did.
    The remaining, purely Roman/Italian state was simply lacking the resources to hold off Romanized Barbarian hoards. Without the money weapon, it was too close to being a fair fight.
    So they eventually got chased out of metropolitan Rome to look for something safer.
    That by itself would not have been the head-first-into oblivian dive. They were able to maintain pockets of the old life. But the relentlessly increasing danger of travel strangled literacy–the written word.

    Early Rome fought with epic courage and will to sacrifice; and so they grew. They defended their empire with some courage plus lots of gold. It did work in many places until almost the day the gold ran out. Stupid feminist ideas no doubt speeded the piss-the-gold away process but at the of the day the Italian Core of Rome lacked the cash to pay for its safety and lacked the intact balls to take on the whole job themselves, There is no guarantee that they could have prevailed if their act was together. such is life.
    Any long term meaningful connection between the spirraling US National debt and the afforability of 12 Naval Airwings on 12 supercarriers is just an accidental thought.
    OTOH, how does a nation fall as long as it can put a GPS guided N. thingie down the earhole of the PrimeMinister for life of Absurdistan or of any country at all?

    Like


  149. Hey, let us also be wary of people like Sarah Palin – who is a great lady. But she calls for conservative feminism.

    That terminology seems innocuous but it could backfire. I dont’ want anything to do with conservative fembots.

    I reject that notion…And so should the men***

    Like


  150. @LP 999

    You just mentioned what I’ll end up having to do in 2011 often enough, which is letting men know about Sarah Palin’s desire to make feminism a conservative value.

    Here she is at a rally in Carson, California on October 4th, 2008 accepting an endorsement from Shelly Mandell of the LA Chapter of the NOW (National Organization of Sick Women):

    Money quote: “There’s a place in Hell for women who don’t support other women”.

    What the Hell?

    She even says afterward that she’s surprised she wasn’t booed for saying that.

    In other words, she KNEW she was sticking a knife in whatever was left of the conservative patriarchy and telling NOW members that the GOP was on their side now if she has anything to do with it.

    She thought there’d be more resistance to that remark, but she overestimated the American conservative male in thinking that.

    Note the manginas behind her who aren’t even frowning and looking confused the way they should be after her treacherous attempt to turn conservatism on its ear.

    If you want to see what a frog looks like while its slowly being boiled (by raising the temperature slowly), just look at the two men clapping behind Sarah in this video.

    Like


  151. Here is the video embedded:

    If this embedding didn’t work, moderator please delete.

    Like


  152. And exactly how are you going to explain the Byzantine Empire and its astounding success for another thousand years?

    Like


  153. on December 30, 2010 at 12:02 pm Interesting Connections

    Using Glubb’s thesis, it would seem we should date the US “empire” from at least 1776.

    If you replace the grain tax in Roman Times with the manufacturing tax (lots of manufacturing has fled overseas) and look at the destruction of agriculture in California’s Central Valley, this look pretty similar.

    The only question left is how long can the US hang on and which new “empire” will rise to replace it. Perhaps another question is, given that territorial conquest is so expensive these days, will another form of conquest arise?

    Like


  154. on December 30, 2010 at 12:12 pm Interesting Connections

    @Trimegistus:
    “If you want to draw a parallel to Rome, this isn’t the fall,
    this is the end of the Republic and the start of the Empire.
    Indeed, at some point some Democratic politician will realize
    that by conquering other countries he can bring home loot
    to buy votes with, and suddenly every liberal will be all
    fired up for military glory.”

    Well, it seems that we are in that stage (haven’t you heard of Iraq and Afghanistan?). However, the loot is not coming back to the US. Rather, it is going into the pockets of the few who supply weapons etc.

    The details will not necessarily be the same and one can view the first few settlements in North America as analogous to the beginning of the Roman Republic.

    Like


  155. on December 30, 2010 at 1:03 pm Interesting Connections

    @Trimegistus:
    “If you want to draw a parallel to Rome, this isn’t the fall,
    this is the end of the Republic and the start of the Empire.
    Indeed, at some point some Democratic politician will realize
    that by conquering other countries he can bring home loot
    to buy votes with, and suddenly every liberal will be all
    fired up for military glory.”

    The details are not always the same.

    Perhaps the era of US corporations traveling overseas and buying up companies and looting resources is the analog to the conquering armies and generals of the past.

    Like


  156. on December 30, 2010 at 2:15 pm Obstinance Works

    My eye-festering festival balls are great.

    I see your point on attacking religio-conservatives on social issues such as their contrarian stance on snorting cocain off a pretty blond girl’s ass. She don’t lie, she don’t lie, she don’t lie. But a fiscal conservative needs to keep some facts in mind about religious conservatives. See the study by professor Arthur Brooks on who gives the most to charity.

    Religious conservatives make up like 20% of the usa population– thank God. Religious conservatives donate almost twice as much per capita than everyone else. They give more to secular charities than secular progressives do and give more time and services. And here is the kicker: a religious conservative who shuns redistributive income gives 100 times more and 50 times more to secular charities than a progressive liberal who doesn’t go to church (atheist probably). And now for the cherry on top. Conservatives make less than liberals.

    Now we can take into account Schopenhauer’s observation that poor people give more than rich, because the rich are divorced from discomfort [and reality]; but there is more to it than that. So listen fiscal conservative; the religious proles work harder, make less, contribute more to society by obeying the laws and giving to the poor and needy, are less ambitious (fat), and are happy about it. How couldn’t a technocratic capitalist not just love the possiblity of the exploitation of a social group without respresentation, who are even happy to live to tell the tale?! Even atheists have to admit that God is a pretty smart dude. Uncle Sambo on the otherhand, not so much.

    And as for me, I consider myself a religious libertarian. I’m guessing that group represents .00001% of the population, and virtually nothing data-based applies to me. Hey I walk a lonely road. Read it and sheep.—

    I have always wondered about feminism in the Roman empire, but was always too otiose to figure it out for myself. Thanks Dark Lord! I know that this theory is a bit half-baked (What discussion isn’t minus decades of expert technic, and who wants to do those?), but there is still enough evidence here to support the the thesis.

    Rome had a good bit of homosex running naked through the empire, which draws some similarity to the pussification of modern Americans and the acceptance of the unacceptable practise (More on why I don’t go to bars anymore later). My history professor posited that ancient homosex was in a way different than modern homosex. Ancient homos, especially in Rome, worshiped the male experience and, at least made the excuse, that homosex was to keep the superiority of malehood established contra the [oh so sweet at times] weakness of womanhood. He cited the ways Roman women would have to compete with her man’s male lovers. This all sounds like the contermporay homo excuse that some homosexual acts are “not gay.” Who knows? I sure don’t want to. Feminism means severed balls. That might not equate to homosex, but it trips the light fantasticly close to the precipice.

    Like


  157. Jerry:

    Thanks for the Palin video. Anyone who thinks there is anything “conservative” about the Republicans is sorely deluded. The Repubs are as feminist as the Dems. Voting for the GOP is wasting your vote. We need a third party that will promote men’s interests and fight feminism.

    Like


  158. Roman matrons used to say to their sons: ‘Come back with your shield, or on it.’ Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome.” ——Robert Heinlein in The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.

    Like


  159. Stan

    Jerry:

    Thanks for the Palin video. Anyone who thinks there is anything “conservative” about the Republicans is sorely deluded. The Repubs are as feminist as the Dems. Voting for the GOP is wasting your vote. We need a third party that will promote men’s interests and fight feminism.

    I have doubts about seeking to use the vote to achieve political solutions.

    I doubt policy is much affected by voting.

    I find it easier to find personal solutions to political problems, by simply ignoring all laws and living life as I choose. The system is too much like the weather to waste time changing it. The three options are to change the system, work with the system, or ignore the system. I find that the people who consider themselves politically involved often over estimate the effect of that involvement. Politics is power, and power comes from money. Not opinion.

    Like


  160. on December 31, 2010 at 10:38 pm rebelliousvanilla

    “We need to answer this question: does feminism weaken men, or do weak men inspire feminism?”
    The way I see it, feminism is a shit test. Only a group of beta men would accept it.

    And there are only two things that no state has survived before:
    1)inclusion of foreigners in its citizen body
    2)feminism
    We did both. I can’t wait for the collapse of the current states though. I root for their complete destruction since they embody everything I hate about Western civilization.

    Like


  161. Perhaps the surest indicator of betatude is the need for game in order to have a harem of gals.My grandpa married four wives,my uncle has three.They never ever need to figure out any lines.Our generation,on the other hand spents so much time trying to figure out what the woman is thinking that they boach everything.Perhaps the surest way to get a fleet of chics is not to look for them:Just exploit your talents and the rest will take care of itself.

    Like


  162. rebelliousvanilla, your wishes seem to be a bit childish. You want the destruction of western civ (all and sundry?) to be replaced by what? Some even more dysfunctional cultural structure? Why not simply fix what is broken, instead of pouring the child with water out of the bathtub?

    k “just be yourself”, BS. Your relatives never needed any lines because the culture was different and they actually knew the lines. They rode on the millennia of established rules. The romanticism is the point where things started to go downhill. From 60’s on, with feminist herstory, the male segment of population was fed pure unadulterated bullshit. The Game is to rectify that and return things towards the natural state.

    Like


  163. […] Chateau – “Feminism Responsible for the Fall of Rome” […]

    Like


  164. Anyone interested in this present parallel between Rome and the US should listen to Jim Rickards interviewed on King World News. You’ll get a person who speaks in concretes instead of the usual vague platitudes about “decline.” Note, for example, that Rome never had government debt. Start from that…

    Like


  165. (As I posted earlier at the linked article:)

    I like the attempt to really understand this and I hope the comment quantity matches the high quality so far. Here’s my contribution.

    1.
    Alpha Woman vs. Alpha Feminist

    Both are female but represent two different choices. The Alpha woman is a queen bee, someone with femininity so powerful and appealing that females around her will love, hate, or/and emulate. Her talents and energy tend to amplify traditional gender roles, so powerful beauty and allure often exist, triggering a primal response in men.

    The Alpha feminist, however, attempts to be as much of a counterpoint as she can regarding traditional gender roles. Maybe she tries to have it all, or maybe she forsakes motherhood (or/and submission to her man) entirely in favor of some other primary life goal and accomplishment. She will give birth to her own personal success in however she chooses to define it.

    Both choices will tend involve similar committment and energy investments. An Alpha woman utterly dedicated to being a mother and supportive wife will probably end up working her body/mind to a degree similar to that of the Alpha feminist.

    Consider that these two archetypes are like species of weeds. One might have deep, thick roots to protect itself and release incredibly mobile seed; the other might evolve sharp thorns, beautiful colors, and thick branches. Both are viable life-forms with a powerful spark behind them, but neither possesses the strengths of both. This is simply because energy itself is never created or destroyed. This means that our life energy, plant or animal, is a zero-sum game where the potential gains come from 1) economies of scale and 2) reducing friction losses to the environment.

    Women and men alike should consider all this carefully when trying to understand our modern times.

    2.
    Cheating in relationships between Alpha Females and Beta Males

    Human beings are animals and therefore we are dealing with pack order/psychology. The Alpha eats first and is in charge, and the Beta picks up where the Alpha leaves off. If there is ever an essential question over who is dominant, the answer is clear. The Alpha.

    The stories are endless about Alpha males cheating on their women, and the women usually putting up with it because the male is perceived to be of such high quality. But then we scratch our heads in wonder at how an Alpha female could dominate or otherwise exploit her Beta male. In these modern times, let us instead think of it as the Alpha partner reaping these spoils. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

    Pack society allows that whomever is Alpha has clearance to dominate and exploit, until the Beta eventually usurps the Alpha — thus becoming Alpha and aquiring the same clearance. We must start from this animal simplicity, and only then start adding the layers of intellect and self-awareness.

    3.
    From The FT article: “The problem, Kellaway says, is that “[h]igh-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren’t attracted to women who are more successful than they are.” But her advice to a young woman aspiring to the corner office rings true to me: “give more thought to her choice of spouse. She should go for someone who is mentally her match, but who is happy to play a supporting role.”

    From Whiskey_199: “Since anything a beta male does can be done “better” (or rather sexier and cheaper) by illegal alien nannies and a rotating crop of Alpha A-holes”

    Here, there’s a dimension of Big Pimpin’ that is helpful. The pimp’s woman is out in the world working for them, after which she brings her money home to him. He spends it as he pleases and she goes out the next day. If she steps out of line, he puts her back into place. This should be offensive, but it isn’t because the fact is simply that Pimpin’ ain’t easy.

    Similarly, it will be hard for Beta males to summon the audacity to take over the household, run it as he pleases, lounge around and enjoy his spare time as much as he can, and have his woman out there working for him, bringing home the money and buying *him* the new Lexus. Yet this is exactly what must be done; after all, the reverse is precisely the lifestyle that a committed, conventionally-successful Alpha male can offer his Alpha female.

    The symmetry here is perfect and it should also be considered carefully. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    4.
    Suggested solutions

    It is as MikeC&F says: The problem requires each partner to be as water running upstream. So what we must do is change *selectively*, as a pack society, the value systems that reject behavior contrary to traditional gender roles.

    For women: Must not devalue males for developing ‘Alpha feminine traits’ necessarily marginalized or dropped in favor of ‘Alpha feminist traits’

    For men: Must not devalue females for breadwinning, dominance, and decision making

    For both: Must not devalue relationships that undermine their own ideals

    The selective solution I propose is for men and women to agree that they are choosing the lifestyle of the committed “Alpha feminist relationship.” Feminists can be women or men, and Alpha dominates, and therefore the term is realistic. Meanwhile, women and men who choose to be more primal in their partnership chemistry need to be honored and protected from competitive erosion.

    Like


  166. Bob Anderson: you ask good questions about “What If” America didn’t have fractional reserve banking, stuck to hard metals as currency, didn’t engage in imperialist wars, etc.

    I think it’s sharper to ask, what if America “hadn’t” adopted such postures. Put simply, progress wouldn’t have happened in nearly the same way and perhaps not nearly as powerfully (and powerfully leveraged, an idea which both leads and follows in this case).

    Similarly we can say of Rome, “What If” Rome hadn’t failed to summon the wisdom to see the folly of their choices, straighten up, and fly right? Rome did fail in this, and meanwhile their civilization crumbled. Therefore, in broad terms we must also ask “What If” America also fails to summon this wisdom?

    Like


  167. if you like travel you can visit this link: http://www.neopolistour.com

    Like


  168. A country that moves away from traditional values will collapse. So yes feminism is not a traditional value and it is the primal cause of an empire’s demise. The collapse of the US empire will be complete and total.
    Most/majority of Americans do not understand how an economy works..and how economics interacts with social, cultural and other aspects. Americans are mostly brainwashed through mainstream media propaganda or through respectable institutions of higher learning that teach nothing but Voodoo Economics. What we then have is a recipe for disaster. And it is only accelerating.

    Like


  169. Actually the article is wrong on there being two advanced matriarchal societies. It is impossible. All societies are patriarchal.

    Like


  170. I have personally stopped going to work and you can call me lazy…but who wants to deal with dumb bitches at work on a daily basis. I’d rather not work and not pay any taxes, than deal with feminist bullshit day in and day out.
    Women can take over and do all the work they want…i dont care. But I know for sure this puppy isn’t going to last long…this puppy is going down!

    Like


  171. Because of immigration from the East, much of the Roman elite were eventually replaced by non-Italians.

    See classicist E. Christian Kopff’s review of Tenney Frank’s famous essay:

    http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v5n4/54-Kopff.pdf

    Like


  172. FEMINISM IN ANCIENT SPARTA

    Feminism is not a modern invention, as many suppose. It existed in the ancient world – and its consequences were largely the same as now. A classic example is the Greek city-state of Sparta. It would shock most people to know that the famous warrior state was a paradise for women (relatively speaking) but it was. The Spartans granted educational and economic equality to women – and it contributed greatly to their eventual downfall. Spartan girls were given the same curricula as the boys and encouraged to engage in sports. They were also granted the right to hold property in their own name and inherit property on an equal basis. The Spartan economy was largely agricultural. While Spartan men were away on war Spartan women ran the household and controlled the finances. As much as 35%-40% of Spartan land was owned by women some of whom became quite wealthy.

    Sparta suffered quite a decline in its birth rate during its decline. Some of this was caused by economic factors, such as limiting reproduction to avoid splitting up estates and inheritances. But much more it was caused by the independence of women. Women were too busy being “liberated” to bother with the necessities of reproduction. In several centuries time, the total number of Spartiae (Spartan citizens as opposed to the helots and half-citizens) had declined from 7000 down to 700 (a 90% drop). Spartan sterility was remarked upon by many observers, particularly the Romans. The Spartans eventually reached the stage where they could no longer replace their losses in war. They were conquered by the Romans and ceased to exist. Spartan women were noted for their adulteries, particularly in their later stages of decline. There was no stigma attached to adultery and Spartan women could violate marital vows with relative impunity.

    The similarity of all this to modern feminism is striking. The sterility, the free love, the equal educational and athletic opportunities, the female control of the economy are, in essence, the same trends observable today. And this brings up the key point: Totalitarian societies, past and present, do not enslave women, they liberate them. It was so in the ancient world; it was so in Jewish-Marxist Russia; it is true in the degenerating and decaying society of today.

    Like


  173. WHY MEN SHOULD HAVE THE JOBS

    Everyone these days accepts the idea that women should have equal job rights with men. But this view is entirely fallacious. There are sound reasons why men should be given preference over women in the job market. A man cannot attract a woman as a mate unless he has a job to provide for her and her children. But a woman can attract a man by offering her sexual services and her reproductive capacity. He must have the job to get married; she can get married without the job. A man’s money strengthens the marriage and the family; the woman’s money weakens it. When a man is supporting a family, the child grows up with two parents. The male children have a role model to aspire to. The woman, being dependent on her husband’s pay check, has an incentive to stay married and function as a home maker. When the woman has the job and the money, she can reproduce on her own with the father absent. The social consequences are disastrous. Single mothers generate male criminals by the bushel. Even when the woman does marry, her economic independence enables her to file for divorce without fear of the consequences. Thus, marriage exists at the woman’s whim. It ceases to be the bedrock of society.

    There are additional problems caused by giving women the jobs. Women like to marry up; women like to marry down. Marriages where the wife out earns the husband have a considerably higher divorce rate than marriages where the husband out earns the wife. When women must marry down, the usual consequence is an increased divorce rate with increased chances of spousal abuse. Women pursuing careers tend to suppress their reproduction to climb the corporate ladder. Despite maternity leave, women know that corporations do not like maternity disruptions. The old “family wage” system of paying a man enough to support a family encouraged reproduction. The woman could raise the children without the extra burden of working at an office.

    In short, giving women job equality is theoretically wrong and has proved disastrous in practice. Few realize that driving women out of the home and into the job market under the pretense of “liberation” has always been basic Marxism. When the industrial revolution began women demanded that employers pay their husbands sufficient wages to allow women to stay home and raise the children. It was Marx and Engel’s and their disciples who wished to destroy the system to make women members of the working class. Today, the old Marxist ideal has been achieved by the capitalist wage-slave system. Both husband and wife must work to afford what they used to have on one pay check. Women have achieved proletarian equality by enraging their men folk. The family has been destroyed and sex roles have faded into oblivion. Neither men nor women have benefited from this process. But one red-haired Khazar who writes of “The End of Men” in the Atlantic Monthly, knows precisely who has really won.

    Like


  174. THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND FEMINISM

    As this writer has repeatedly emphasized in his essays, Communism was a front for Jewish revolution world-wide. The new “ism” of the world is feminism. Is this new “ism” another front for a Jewish attack on traditional gender roles? The evidence strongly suggests that this is the case. Way back on February 20, 1978 “Time” magazine gave the game away with an article “Sexes: The Women of Israel”. The article may seem dated but by 1978 the feminist movement was in full flower in America, if not in the Promised Land. According to English-Jewish journalist Lesley Hazleton in her book, “Israeli Women”, “the liberation of Israeli women is a myth. They move in a male world of reality in the false guise of equals.”

    According to the “Time” article:

    “By Western standards, she reports, Israel’s attitude toward women is regressive. Women are not allowed to testify in rabbinical courts, which handle divorce and marriage for all Jews. They cannot divorce without a husband’s permission, and childless widows need a brother-in-law’s approval for remarriage, sometimes gaining it with bribes. If a woman has been widowed three times, with all three husbands dying of natural causes, she is declared the isha katlanit, the fatal woman, and is legally forbidden to marry again. If a husband simply disappears, no matter how long he has been missing; his wife cannot remarry without absolute proof of his death…”

    In civilian employment, women are not much better off. Only a third of them work outside the home, mostly in lower paying jobs. Women account for only 9% of the higher-grade civil service positions, 2% of all professors, 1% of the nations engineers…Though the law calls for equal pay for equal work, many women are paid less than men for similar tasks…”

    “In primary schools, she says, youngsters absorb a shocking degree of sex stereotyping that takes its toll on Israeli females…In the kibbutzim, men call the tune and fill almost all the important jobs.”

    The information given by Lesley Hazelton may be confirmed by other sources. For example, the Israeli academic Yael Yishai, in “Between the Flag and the Banner: Women in Israeli Politics” writes on p.187:

    “…Religious courts discriminate against women in other ways as well. For example, a man may commit adultery and eventually marry his lover, while a married woman is forbidden ever to marry her lover, and any children born from an extramarital affair are considered bastards (mamzerim). In Judaism a bastard is a pariah. He or she cannot remarry unless the potential spouse is also a bastard. Neither can a bastard in Israel marry outside the faith as the exclusive control of marriage in Israel by the religious authorities precludes such a possibility. Another infringement on women’s rights caused by religious law is the levirate marriage: a woman whose husband dies leaving her childless must be released from her deceased husband’s unmarried brother in a ceremony carried out in rabbinical court. Often extortion payments may be involved before she gets her release…Widows of war casualties, often childless young women, have occasionally been trapped in this bizarre situation.”

    Although feminism has made minor strides in Israel, the patriarchy is still very firm. Women are expected to ride in the back of the bus, only with great reluctance are women being admitted to the rabbinate. The Orthodox in particular are adamant that Torah and Talmud are for “men only”. Israel has no affirmative action to promote Arab girls over Jewish boys in the work place. That holy of holies, pro-choice abortion, is unknown in Israel. The Jewess must apply for permission to have an abortion to a State Board, which makes the choice for her. Such factors as the mother’s ability to provide for the child financially are balanced against the state’s need for a higher Jewish birth rate.

    One need not do much of a comparison to realize that Jews in Israel are repressing women the same way they are “liberating” them in America. That the feminist movement in the U.S. has been Jewish led from inception is indisputable. The early 1960’s feminists were entirely Jewish. Betty Goldstein/Friedan, Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinem were a few of the founders. The universities are full of Jewesses who are the driving force behind feminism. Such creatures as Adrienne Rich, the lesbian poetess at Stanford University, Elena Kagan, the former president of Harvard Law School gone to the Supreme Court, are good examples. Ninety per cent plus of feminist books are written by Jewess and published by New York Jewish publishers. Think of writers like Naomi Wolf, Erica Jong, Linda Ellerbee, Andrea Dworkin, Shulasmith Firestone and Hannah Rosin, the recent author of “End of Men” in the Atlantic Monthly. (One rather doubts that she foresees the “End of Men” in Israel, however.) Think of media commentators like Leslie Stahl and Barbara Walters. These feminists scream about the evils of white male domination in these United States. But Barbara Walters and her ilk remain silent on the subjection of women in Israel. They scream about the Taliban but make no mention of the Jewish sex slave trade and the brothels in Tel Aviv. They make no demand that the state of Israel register as a “sex offender” before the United Nations.

    The founding mother of 1960’s feminism, Betty Friedan, has a communist past as great as or greater than that of the civil rights saint, Martin Luther King, Jr. She wrote a play defending the now proven guilty Rosenbergs while in college. She worked as a newspaper editor for the chief communist union of the late 1940’s/early 1950’s, the United Electrical, Radio and Machinists Union. She was a member of the Communist Party’s chief legal front for females, the Congress of American Women (COW). When a professor Daniel Horowitz interviewed Betty for his biography, “Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminist Mystique” (University of Massachusetts Press), Friedan refused to provide all of her private papers for fear of the extent of the proof of her Communist background. This material still remains sealed from public scrutiny, just like the records of the FBI surveillance tapes of Martin Luther King remain similarly sealed.

    The proof that feminism is a Jewish assault on white male patriarchy is overwhelming. The Jewish preponderance in the movement, the disparity between what Jews practice in Israel versus what Jews preach in these United States and the Communist background of feminism’s “Jewish Mother” leave no doubt of the thesis.

    Like


  175. @John

    I don’t have time to read all of your brilliant comment, but please go to the Beta Valentine thread and reprint what you just wrote.

    There are some guys there debating whether money is important or not in dating and as part of game.

    I just wrote that it’s dangerous for PUA communities to downplay money too much because it might make men too complacent about socialistic policies that transfer wealth from older male producers to younger women without requiring the women to kiss the older men’s butts (which they should instead of having sex with non-producers, which will kill the desire of older men to even remain in the country much less work so hard to produce).

    I noted that very young men benefit from socialism because it makes the women their age less likely to look to an older producer.

    Like


  176. I fail to understand the comment. There was a big increase in government spending in the US in all states where women were given the vote prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment. Thus, the connection between feminism and the rise of the disease called socialism is pretty clear. I do not dispute it.

    The blog author is correct that the rise of feminism had a lot to do with the fall of Rome. As to my comments on the current variety of feminism they are factually well supported. Jews predominate in the movement; the Jewesses spreading the nonsense are silent about how women are treated in Israel. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

    Like


  177. […] (post-1960s), which is going to destroy civilization (something which, on my better days, I actually care about), […]

    Like


  178. on February 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm King McAllister

    Bunch of right-leaning self-satisfying drivel. The writer is a racist, homophobe, and misogynist.

    Feminism isn’t the problem. You lot of ignorant bigots who are keeping us in the dark ages are the problem. Congratulations, you’re going to be the ones who send America into the shitter.

    Like


  179. @McAllister

    Without socialism transferring wealth from older men to younger women making the younger women “independent” and unnaturally prone to jump the bones of unemployed youth, feminism itself would have no real power.

    Also without manginas on the left and White Knighters on the right chivalrously supporting women’s political interests over men’s interests in a zero sum game, feminism would at least face some political opposition in the US Congress.

    So you’re right. Feminism isn’t the problem.

    Luckily, at least Rand Paul is tackling socialism right now.

    Like


  180. It would appear that Mr. McAllister does not like facts. Bully for him.

    Like


  181. on February 28, 2011 at 8:18 am Nicolas Matthews

    I agree that American women or at least most American women are an arrogant and abrasive lot but other western women are not much better so if one wishes to find a decent wife one has to look outside the western world and even then care is needed because not all non western women are decent.

    Western culture has spoiled most women under its influence to the extent that their only use is to provide sex and taxes to the state from their income while about 60% of them also procreate children even if relatively late in the reproductive period, in their mid to late thirties. Pregnant women in their twenties, let alone in their late teens, are a rare sight nowadays.

    According to my guiding principle most western women are too ego driven to make good wives and marrying with such masculinised women is sheer folly. Why turn your home into a battle zone and risk losing half your property in countries like the USA and the UK? Better have such women as girl friends for as long as it will last, then find another one. They also need sex just as much so they will always be looking for men.

    For marriage find a humble down to earth woman that will be respectful and loyal towards her man and will look after the house without feeling degraded and out of her depth. That means basically a non western and a non western influenced woman. Then you can go and work outside without worrying about who will be looking after the house.

    Like