Two months ago I accepted the invitation of my good friend Giannozzo Strozzi for a celebration of his forty-second birthday at his family’s modest yet comfortable villa outside Spoleto, in Umbria. He had mentioned that Roosh V would be flying in from the Ukraine to be present, and that some writers at Return of Kings would also be in attendance. (Not all writers were present, some having been detained at Rome due to travel delays). So I looked forward to the event with great anticipation. It is rare enough when the responsibilities of life allow us to escape and savor moments of reflection and conviviality, but it is rarer still to have an opportunity to share those moments with serious and stimulating personalities.
The topics we discussed at Strozzi’s villa were weighty, beneficial, and memorable, and affected all of us deeply. I am sure all of us recall vividly the sight of Roosh V pacing back and forth, sometimes standing and sometimes reclining, answering our questions and goading us on, in his own maddening yet effective way, to greater and greater depths of inquiry.
I could not allow what was discussed there to fall into oblivion, so I took it upon myself to sketch some notes as our discussions during the weekend ran their course. What follows is my best recollection of the statements and dissertations of the speakers.
The Speakers: Roosh V, Athlone McGinness, Tuthmosis, Samseau, Christian McQueen, Emmanuel Goldstein, Law Dogger, Quintus Curtius, Giannozzo Strozzi, Rinaldo Manetti, Mario Palla, unidentified party.
Petri. Yesterday, Roosh, you presumptuously suggested that you could trace the origin and development of the patriarchy. I should like to hear more of that.
Goldstein. I would concur with that suggestion.
McGinnis. And I also, without doubt.
Roosh. Well, you certainly seem eager not to waste time on preliminaries, my dear Petri. I suppose you could assist me by first explaining what you mean by “patriarchy”. Am I to know what you mean by this word?
McQueen. Let’s have none of these evasive games now, Roosh. The day has been long, and the mind grows weary. I think we all know what is meant by the term.
Roosh. Do we, now? I certainly have never sought to wear out my welcome with unnecessary repetition. I have no desire to become one of those irritating poets who peddle stale verses. As Martial said of the annoying Ligurinus, who pestered him everywhere,
Et stanti legis, et legis sedenti,
Currenti legis, et legis cacanti.[1]
But I will certainly explain in detail what I mean by patriarchy and its origins. It is an important issue deserving of our patient consideration.
Tuthmosis. It would be well to do so, for your position on this matter has yet to be fully clarified. We are thirsty, yet you seek to deprive us of the sustaining drink. One is reminded of Tantalus, surrounded by water but never able to quench his thirst,
Mento summam aquam attingens enectus siti.[2]
Law Dogger. Well said, Tuthmosis. But let him proceed. I wish to hear the details, and can only gnaw on these olives here for so long. Pass me that wine there, Manetti.
Roosh. First, some preliminaries. The first matter is one that most of you are already aware of, but nevertheless must be said. This concerns the initial priority of silence in conducting inquiries into important issues. Silence must be the first imperative in the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom. Modern communication and technology has extended the persistence and scope of random opinion beyond anything imaginable by our ancestors; but this advancement in technology has not been matched by a concurrent advancement in patience and judgment. Technology has multiplied not only the volume of dispensers of knowledge, but also the founts of idiocy and jibberish as well.
Too many knaves now have a platform, too many dunces an outlet, and too many fools an unsustainable position. I often regret that our educational system places too great an emphasis on the training of the student’s mind, but hardly anything at all on the development of the character and moral fortitude. Knowledge untempered by the fire of experience and wisdom is hardly worth its name.
Samseau. I would agree strongly with you on this point. Yet the modern environment is not exactly conducive to calm reflection and reasoning.
Roosh. Consider, my friends, the philosopher Pythagoras. As soon as he deemed a novice worthy of admittance to his school, he would order the new student not to speak at all of the doctrines he was learning. This practice would continue for two years. Restraint in speech was the first imperative, as St. Benedict discovered centuries later when constructing the rule for his own order. Pythagoras believed, quite correctly, that a man was incapable of speaking coherently before he first learned to hold his tongue.
And so it is also with the art of leadership: one cannot lead unless one has first learned how to follow. It is also recorded that the second king of the Romans, Numa Pompilia, thought that his people should devote special worship to the goddess Tacita (that is, the goddess of silence). One seldom errs or goes astray by keeping silent, whereas injudicious speech has brought down many a house.
Palla. I have often been sorry for my speech, but never for my silence.
Roosh. Indeed, brother. It is a lesson that is lost on many people today, who can barely restrain themselves from offering an ill-considered thought on any occasion, and are hypersensitive to any perceived criticism. For this reason, we should not value what the ignorant multitude says of us, but only what wise men may think. Fame or infamy are two sides of the same coin; and the multitude, due to its feminine and fickle nature, can alternate between the two with startling rapidity. But let us consider the proposition at hand, the origin of the patriarchy.
[Unidentified party]. Yes, certainly. You had promised us an explanation of your position. But be mindful also of the warning the philosopher Pittacus issued: Tempus cognosce! [3]
Roosh. Let us begin. If I need to pace the room, forgive me in advance for this distraction. In most societies throughout history, the subordination of women has been the rule rather than the exception. Yes, there have been female rulers among some sub-Saharan African peoples; and in the social structure of the Pelew Islands, we are told by ethnologists, the chief made no decision without consultation from elder women. American Indian tribes present another example. Among the Iroquois and the Seneca, women also held great power. But these are the exceptions, rather than the rule.
Quintus. True. And during the Periclean period of Greek history, the social position of women was even lower than that of North American Indians. This, despite the fact that the relative position of women usually rises with the wealth of a society.
Roosh. Precisely. In the hunting stages of civilization, women perhaps did most of the work of the tribe except the dangerous pursuit and killing of big game. Agriculture, woodworking, weaving, pottery, child rearing, cooking, were all most likely female innovations. Because hunting involves brief periods of intense activity followed by long periods of rest, we can imagine that the life of a man in that age was something akin to bursts of danger interspersed by long periods of repose and idleness. We see this even today in many parts of the undeveloped world. In Neolithic times, women were most likely our near equals in strength and endurance. This is so because the sex roles may not have have been as differentiated as now with regards to physical labor. Anyone who has tried his hand at agriculture, the butchering of game, or any of the other handicrafts I have described will know how physically demanding they can be.
We are all, both men and women, but pale reflections of our ancestors! How many of us here can say they know what it is like to go without food, or without shelter, for any extended period of time? Or to be hounded by the ravages of disease? Primitive man knew that his life was either feast or famine. Some weeks the hunt went well, and some weeks he caught nothing. He and his kin were at the mercy of the elements, and the wild animals around him. Life could not be counted on beyond the next meal. And this is why in the primitive state before civilization, greed and cruelty may have been virtues, rather than the vices which they are today.
Manetti. I am not so sure, Roosh, that you are correct on this point.
Roosh. Women, at that time, were prized for their abilities as workers, artisans, and burden-bearers. I read once that a chief of the Chippewa Indians told an explorer, “Women are created for work. One of them can carry or draw as much as two men. They also pitch our tents, make our clothes, mend them, and keep us warm at night… we absolutely cannot get along without them on a journey. They do everything and cost only a little; for since they must be forever cooking, they can be satisfied in lean times by licking their fingers.” [4]
Law Dogger. Women may have been the original impetus behind primitive forms of commercial trade. That is, the exchange of agricultural goods, commodities, and necessary foodstuffs. We can imagine the women of one tribe or village exchanging “manufactured” goods with those of other communities.
Roosh. Perhaps. Primitive man, it is clear, had no delusions about sex and marriage as modern man does. He took his sex much more practically and philosophically than we do now, with no pretense to idealism. Marriage to primitive man was a frank economic transaction. He demanded from his woman practical virtues, along the lines of what I have earlier described. A woman who could function as an artisan, burden-bearer, child-rearer, or the like, was infinitely more valuable than one who could not. All women in those days, presumably, could do something useful. A woman who could do nothing was a burden, not a benefit. Certainly primitive man appreciated beauty—who does not?—but he was able to subordinate this appreciation of beauty to the necessities of life.
To him, marriage was worthless if it did not add to his economic benefit. How much more sensible were our ancestors than we are! Marriage was a profitable partnership, not a private pantomine of sexual frolic. The marital unit was meant to be a way for both parties to be more prosperous than if each worked alone.
We would do well to remember this, brothers: in the history of civilization, whenever women have ceased to be an economic asset in marriage, the institution of marriage has declined. And when the institution of marriage has decayed, civilization has decayed with it. We see this process happening now with varying degrees of acceleration in different Western nations. Marriage has become nothing but a private contract, to be broken at a whim, with a resultant unequal transfer of wealth to the female. Civilization cannot sustain such an affront and a mockery for long.
Goldstein. I can see your point on this. But the implications are disturbing, and the leadership is incapable or unwilling to address it.
Roosh. Let us develop this point. As agriculture and societies became more complex and differentiated, it appears that the stronger sex—man—took more of the control of it into his hands. The domestication of animals, especially cattle, provided a source of wealth and power that women were unable to compete with. Slowly, women became replaced by animals in the fields; and the development of the plough placed more of a value on physical strength. The cultivation of the soil rose greatly in importance. For that reason, the stronger sex–man–desired the ability to pass it on to his offspring.
Manetti. Yes, this is quite true. The primacy of agriculture cannot be overstated. Land was transformed into a commodity of great value. As you know, Cato the Elder wrote in his treatise De Agricultura that the best use of agricultural land was “profitable cattle raising.” He said the next best use of such land was “moderately profitable cattle raising”; and that the third best use of such land was “unprofitable cattle raising.” In such a way did the great landed estates of Italy develop, the latifundia.
Roosh. The only way for a man to ensure that his woman’s offspring were his own genetic product was for him to adapt custom and law to require the sexual subordination of women. Until that time, it is likely that virginity was a handicap rather than a virtue.
Strozzi. How so? I am not sure I follow you there.
Roosh. Primitive societies valued fertility over virginity, my dear Strozzi. The ability to bear offspring was an economic advantage. An obvious pregnancy settled all doubts as to fertility.
In any case, property began to be passed down through the male. Motherhood gave way to the patriarchy. Idols of worship which were once feminine fertility symbols began to be replaced by the graphic representation of gods as stern male figures. In essence, patriarchs. Have you not seen primitive Neolithic carvings of obese female fertility symbols? This ethic was replaced by another. And religion adapted itself to social and economic development.
And this is how the patriarchy was born. The woman essentially became the property of the man, first of her father or oldest brother, then of her husband. A woman could be bought in marriage just as a slave was bought at a market, and in some parts of the world this is still true. In some regions, such as New Guinea, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, the ancient Scandinavians, and India, the woman was either killed or expected to commit suicide when her husband died.
Samseau. I understand the British abolished the custom of the suttee in India when they consolidated their control over the country.
Roosh. The life of the woman was everywhere considered to be cheaper than that of a man. In Fiji, wives could be sold on a whim, with the price usually being a good rifle. In New Caledonia, we are told, the wife would sleep in a shed, while the man slept in the house. Marriage as an institution was the synthesis of two things: the law of property and, frankly, the institution of slavery.
Palla. Surely, Roosh, you have gone too far with this. And in any case, of what importance to us are these anthropological speculations? I fear we are exerting much effort for little reward. Remember the legend of Sisyphus, forever toiling to no avail: Sisyphus versat saxum sudans nitendo neque proficit hilum, as Cicero says. [5]
Roosh. You are mistaken. They are important because, in order to understand our present situation, we need to know a little about the origins of civilization and the differentiation of gender roles. Have you not heard anything I have said? Have you not reflected on my words, Palla? It is clear that every civilization in history has been patriarchal in nature. Do you think this is an accident? Hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution have produced social institutions that have stood the test of time.
Modern feminism seeks to substitute its limited judgment for the verdict of thousands of years of human development. Can you imagine the arrogance, the egoism, of this presumption? It nearly takes one’s breath away. But I believe the firm subordination of women to be more than just the result of economic factors. It is clear that all societies have recognized the inherently unstable and hidden destructive power latent in the female psyche.
It is for this reason that all major civilizations found it necessary to keep feminine instability firmly under control. We forget these lessons at our own peril. Left unchecked, feminine energy inclines towards mischief and irrationality. Our ancient Chinese, Mesopotamian, Greek, Roman, Aztec, Peruvian, and Abyssinian ancestors recognized this quite clearly, and never romanticized women as modern men do. The need to keep feminine irrationality firmly under control was a prerequisite for the smooth functioning of society. How can one hope to argue against the collective evolutionary wisdom of hundreds of thousands of years of hominid development?
Feminism, in its quest to destroy the patriarchy, seeks to overturn previous stages of human development. It seeks to replace the wisdom of thousands of years of trial and error with an androgynous, sterile, and fundamentally cruel conception of humanity. Few men have truly understood the fact that feminism is profoundly anti-civilization, at its core. We could correctly say that feminism is a new form of barbarism, in that it seeks to destroy the social basis for civilization.
McQueen. Do you think, Roosh, that you may be exaggerating a bit here?
Roosh. Am I? Look around you at the creeping barbarism that is taking over America and parts of Europe. Already we are seeing clear signs that the social basis of civilization is being profoundly undermined by the influence of feminism. This is not a natural outgrowth of technological development. It is the result of the adoption of a specific, nihilistic philosophy of life. Feminism seeks to destroy the male identity, the social basis of the state, and the sound functioning of social systems.
As we know, the feminist’s vision of humanity is a mindless army of drones, lacking in any beauty or virtue, mouthing its false slogans and genuflecting to its altars of obesity and androgyny. It is a new barbarism, and I fear we are at the doorstep of a new Dark Age. Vulgarization of our social and intellectual life has been proceeding steadily for decades now, birthrates are in decline, and the modern male is in deep crisis. The barbarians are not at the gates; they are already within the gates. As the old order collapses, we can expect generations of chaos and insecurity. So it was in Europe from roughly the deposition of Romulus Augustulus to the middle of the tenth century.
And yet, at the same time, feminism could not exist without the support and encouragement of the existing institutions. The existing institutions in the United States and Europe find it useful to support it because it enables the existing wealthy classes to make more money. Economic gain is held to be more important than social stability. Our leaders have betrayed all of quite profoundly.
Because it is based on lies, feminism cannot stand on its own. And the paradox of feminism is that it is destroying the very institutions which nurture and protect it. It saws the branch upon which it sits. Just as reputation follows virtue, so must infamy follow vice. Once those institutions finally crumble, it will likely burn itself out, much as a disease contagion burns itself out when there are no more hosts left to infect.
Samseau. What, then, can be done?
Roosh. Let us save that topic for future discussion. For now, let us adjourn this session, and meet again tomorrow. For just as we cannot pronounce many words simultaneously, so we cannot engage the intellect on many different subjects. Intellect is a kind of internal speech with which the mind speaks to itself; and whosoever proposes to use his intelligence, cannot hope to bring it to bear on more than one thing at once.
But know that virtue shall carry its own rewards, my dear Samseau. The virtues are the practice of good arts, by which men are made good. And know that this material world, and everything in it, is naught but shadow, and illusion. He who has equipped himself with the arts of virtue will be armored against the cruelties and brutalities of the vulgar mass, which hinders and obstructs rational inquiry.
A virtuous man will not fret about what others say, or do not say. As Augustine truly and wisely noted: “Glory is in hiding, and disgrace is on view. If a wicked act is being performed, it convenes all spectators. If a good deed is said to be taking place, it hardly finds people willing to listen, as if honorable actions were to be blushed at, and dishonorable ones matter for boasting about.” [6]
At this point the discussion ended. Each of us left the dining room, and returned to our individual lodgings. I found myself thinking about the ideas discussed well into the night. More than ever before, I was convinced of the curative powers of philosophy for those matters which oppress the hearts and minds of thoughtful men. And I resolved, notwithstanding any obstacles, to record the substance of these matters which we discussed, so that they could be pondered and reflected upon by like-minded souls. The vine of human wisdom tends to wither at its root, unless that vine is regularly refreshed and sustained by a virtuous caretaker.
[1] Martial, Epigrams III.44. “You read to me as I’m standing, and read as I’m sitting; you read as I’m running, and read as I’m shitting.”
[2] Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, I.10: “Touching the top of the water with his chin, dying of thirst.”
[3] “Know the time”. Diogenes Laertius I.79.
[4] Muller-Lyer, F. Evolution of Modern Marriage. New York, 1930 (p. 112).
[5] Cicero, Tusc. Disp. I.10: “Sisyphus working hard, rolling a stone, sweating, and achieving little”.
[6] Augustine, Civitas Dei, 2.26.5
Read More: The Roots Of Feminism In America
I couldn’t finish this. No one speaks like that in real life anymore, and no one takes notes that elaborate.
I think it was a translation from the original Latin.
Now, if you could only do this in stanza’s alla Dante. Red Pill wisdom as the descent into Hell, the sojourn in Purgatory, and the ascension into Paradise.
Then Manlius BigDickus got up and addressing “doubtful” said, “perhaps, you have been obscured by the parasite of low intelligence to have completely missed the analogous statements of truth”
Then Manlius BigDickus Reposed contrapposto and winked ;D
Very Platonic, down to its tendency to be long and winded. I am genuinely curious as to whether this meeting actually took place. In any case, I actually wrote about some of these topics recently on my various own blogs.
“The only way for a man to ensure that his woman’s offspring
were his own genetic product was for him to adapt custom and law to
require the sexual subordination of women.
“In any case, property began to be passed down through the male.”
The Odyssey is a good example. I wrote about this dynamic when examining Odysseus and Penelope’s relationship:
http://thewarintroy.blogspot.com/2013/07/odysseus-infidelities.html
“And the paradox of feminism is that it is destroying the very
institutions which nurture and protect it. It saws the branch upon
which it sits.”
There is also evidence that the old joke of feminists being angry, ugly girls is more than just a joke:
http://masculineepic.blogspot.com/2013/07/conservatives-make-happier-people.html
These movements destroy happiness and the soul. They must be avoided.
I read a few lines of this and it suddenly reminded me of why style and clothing are so crucial to successful social life: truly bad style is like farting in polite company.
This article is typographical farting.
“Bene, Sit scriptor committitur non satis adhuc sugentem unusquisque dicks.” –the Wolf [citation needed].
Can society hurry up and collapse? b/c its just such a joke and a lie.
Man, I don’t want to have to go the full Silky Johnson on you, but you’ve jumped the shark, flipped back over it, and started cartwheeling around it.
Symposia fan fiction? What part of the game is that? The worst part is that it wasn’t even good. The first four paragraphs, all I could make it thought before tapping out, were completely pointless linguistic masturbation, and the dialogue in general sounded like it was written by someone trying to imagine how smart people talk.
Because I’m not here just to throw shade with no constructive comments, I’ll give the following suggestion. Verbatim quotes from forum discussions, or at least something using that as a template, would have been much more readable and informative.
You just don’t fucking get it, full stop.
Where’s the group photo, simiilar to the 1927 Solvay conference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solvay_conference_1927.jpg
as a physicist that has to be my favourite photo taken ever. some of the greatest minds ever to have been at the same place and the same time if only for a short moment.
memorable all the more considering they had so many individual disputes going both prior to and after this photo was taken. [einsteins unmistakeable contributions in 1905 and his vehement objections to quantum theory which also proven to be correct make it easy to remember that the ego is never far away from man].
the nearest thing we’ve had to that [conference] was the manhattan years, oppenheimer, fermi and richard feynman.
Parody of Plato’s dialogues?
What a marvelous piece of myth-building.
and also very self-indulgent.
You got it, James. Appreciate that. Self-indulgent? Maybe. But sometimes this type of literary artifice is necessary.
Fuck! Did anyone get through this whole piece of crap? I got up to, “Roosh. Well, you certainly seem eager not to waste time on preliminaries, my dear Petri.”
If your job, Quintus, was to make everyone sound like a fucking wanker you succeeded.
I get the feeling you desperately want to suck Roosh’s cock, so stop being all beta about it and just ask. You never know, Roosh might be into it too.
go watch nascar. simple-minded, low class, minimally educated fool.
Quintus: what have you done to this man to anger him? Pass me my feasting cup so we can have a toast.
kkkkkk…a vida e assim, cara, nao e?
Frederick the Great of Prussia was once asked whether he was bothered bothered by hysterical criticism from certain elements in his kingdom. His answer was, “My people and I have an understanding. They can say what they want, and can do what I want.”
aaah, vc fala portuguese tb? bem feito. now, I have to say that while I do enjoy this site on occasion, I firmly get the impression that not only is some of the writing very subpar and without real merit but that also the level of ass kissing to this Roosh fellow might be a bit much. CS has his voice and that’s fine. A little anger, ok. Funny? Yes. My overall thought is that people like this writer should practice a bit of humility. You guys simply come off as arrogant and elitist at times which could distant us from anything credible you may preach. To Roosh I would only say that I enjoyed the DBIP book and that the Rio bust may just be your Amy.
Funny how different things make people happy. QC is my favorite writer here. Well, might be because he frequently writes about history, wrote about Caesar before etc.
ROK is a blog remember, not a bible. QC’s articles make it a very nice read in the morning bundled with coffee. I prefer his way of sharing a manly thought, it’s very indirect, subtle and convenient for even those readers who don’t completely agree with manosphere.
Ah but you’d be wrong. Like a bible, this blog is full of stories, anecdotes and partial truisms which helps guide us through our lives so that we may take note on what not to do. Suggestion based and informative. Pitfalls averted if you will. QC may enjoy your pandering but I enjoy facts.
You simply have zero manners. Plus you name-call people. Fatal combination, which hardly can provoke any further answers from me.
I don’t require ‘answers’ from you. You may ‘respond’ to logical thought though. You chose not to. You went the PC route which is one of the many viruses attacking our world. I didn’t call anyone any names. I said they come off as elitist and arrogant in their writings occasionally. Zero manners would be name calling. Is this meant to be an alpha blog? Enjoy your morning pipe and coffee by the fireside.
Someone ban this ignorant piece of shit.
Ooh, did I offend you, Daiki? Was it the thing about cock sucking? Are you a cock sucker too? Do you take a dislike to anyone suggesting cock sucking is somehow gay? Well it is. But that’s alright, I guess you just like the protein. Good for your skin too, getting cum all over it.
At the risk of declaring myself a fool, and admitting I carefully read about half and skimmed the rest, I believe the advent of patriarchy is as simple as women, and any attempts to fortify the truth convincingly to the philosophically poor will necessarily fail.
Natural selection was twice as harsh on men, we know from DNA analysis that shows twice as many of our collective ancesters were women than were men. We know might makes right, law of conservation, natural selection, evolution as a race with ups and downs, basically The Selfish Gene. It all adds up to a simple truth either accepted or rejected on the matter of patriarchy.
Simply put: Female cooperation is inferior to male cooperation.
Women socialize by intrigue and manipulation that does not consider the constructive benefit of the group upon which its members depend in the contest of life. Women are perfectly honed to feral sociality. Men, to reproduce, had to plan ahead and be mighty in a nearly winner-take-all fashion—standard evo psychology here. Men learned to cooperate by transparency and violence. I am generalizing, but it is true enough because consumption requires production.
With agriculture came culture, exactly together. Culture is male sociality that is constructive, as in makes wealth, and is based on logic and transparency and violence. The winner-take-all nature of men has not physically changed any more than the law of conservation. Conquest is winner take all on the group level, and then the corruption happens internally sooner or later. The liberation of women to their own preferences of social intercourse is the exact beginning of the end of a civilization. The late Roman Republic is the classic example.
Women lack culture. They can behave as if they have it only under husbandry of men. There has only been patriarchy, never matriarchy. Today the people in charge of the West are the elite men of the NWO. Still patriarchy, Hillary Clinton notwithstanding. Feminism is a testament to the greatness of men past who brought us to post-Industrialism. Elizabeth I remained a virgin because in a male defined socialiality, she had to: she was a female patriarch, not a defacto matriarch because society has never been a matriarchy. Iroquois men hunted, fished, warred, fucked, ate, and shit. They put the women to work and gave them the power to administrate domestic affairs, cook, keep up a teepee, and provide sex. True, the squaw could terminate the marriage at any time by putting the guys shoes outside the teepee, but he only had to find another woman’s embrace, and I have never read that Indian men had hareems. Would she have done all the drudgery without some ‘power’? The Mosuo men in mountainous backwaters of China are the same sexual deal, exercising top level power when they see fit, and otherwise laboringing for female administrators who put out best for them. No fatherly duties in the dessimination of culture, so they hardly have any. These men had no mental aspirations, no sense of philosophy or enlightenment or mental discovery.
Civilization (defined shall we say as society advancing in knowledge and competive power of conquest) is a construct only white and yellow men have achieved, by becoming it in a patriotic brotherhood where discipline creates a freedom of membership advantage. I include as white the ancient Middle Eastern proto-Western civilizations that developed our calendar, writing, and more; and there was the Golden Age of Islam, such as it was. Semites are Caucasians, often dark in color but still ‘white’. Ancient Egyptians were born pale and tanned.
Asking how patriarchy came about in human society is like asking how concentric spherical structure came about in stars that make light. It is simply the gravity of the situation acting on limited resources to organize them according to might makes right, gradually but relentlessly. Patriarchy IS society, especially in the highly functional case of civilization, until natural selection is as harsh on women as it has been on men. And for what else is patriarchy but to lend a helping hand to the evolutionarily anachronistic sex?
quintus: i hope that you are neither discouraged nor offended by the negative conflicts below. if your writing reflects your personality, i think it’s safe to assume that you not offended by the ramblings of these troglodytes.
this was an interesting and rather humorous dialogue…and it explored some serious points in an unexpected and unusual manner (i especially liked how the word “patriarchy” was dissected and analyzed).
have you considered organizing small meetings for forum and RoK members?
not the typical nonsense organized at convention centers / stale hotels…but rather, for example, small meetings at quiet bars or cigar lounges (in various cities, worldwide) for like-minded people who would like to discuss serious issues? frankly, while the articles about “game” are entertaining, instructive and at times hilarious, they are highly superficial and not nearly as satisfying as works like this (or your excellent post last week about hatred).
if you’d like to discuss this further (i would be happy to volunteer in organizing these small gatherings), could you suggest a more efficient medium for discussing this?
rez
I concur that philosophical inquiry is valuable, and not popular, but it is the path before us because getting bangs is not the end-all and be-all. Game sure makes for a good begin-all. Whether or not the Manosphere stays relevant will depend on its growth in cultural potency. Maybe the criticisms can be taken like the criticisms of women who know not what they do. When is asking the reader for patience asking the reader for undeserved interest? Parallels Game. More meat, less filler, me thinks. Nevertheless, a very thoughtful and daring post into uncharted waters. Portuguese sailors failed to pass Cape Bojador for fear of melting or something, braver men than most of us here. Philosophy is like Game: it’s good for you. Discover the difference of not sucking.
Very true: “Whether or not the Manosphere stays relevant will depend on its growth in cultural potency.”
Thanks, man. I like to take risks.
Gatherings is a good idea.
I don’t understand why many commenters are being so negative about this article… Who cares about how it was written? The content was meaningful and educative. I’ve never seen patriarchy broken down like that. It was a very interesting read.
Thanks, Daiki. I like to take risks sometimes, and am glad you got something out of it. My goal was to to imitate the classical dialogue, which has been used in the past (antiquity and the Renaissance) as a way of conveying ideas.
If I can get a few readers to turn on to philosophy, then I’ll be satisfied.
Pook wrote like that and his readers took it with a sense of humour and focused on the content of the article, as the readers of RoK should be doing. This is a website for educated and out-going men, not immature kids with closed minds.
it is perfect – it is written perfectly and the nay sayers are whiners
Thank you, Jotun.
any man who is not well read in philosophy and the classics, starting with titan pagans such as homer or plato, is not really a man at all in my books. To say ‘nobody talks like this any more’ is no excuse. People talk like irrational jagoffs these days and it’s no way to conduct a discourse.
From Homers Iliad: ‘Achilles glared at him and answered, “Fool, prate not to me about covenants. There can be no covenants between men and lions, wolves and lambs can never be of one mind, but hate each other out and out an through. Therefore there can be no understanding between you and me…’
It’s a shame so many have focused on the format of your article rather than the content. Once I realized you were mirroring a Platonic dialogue (it was a risk well taken), I found some of the ideas to be very thought provoking. For instance, this dialogue sought to examine the origins of patriarchy, however, Roosh makes the claim that “feminism seeks to destroy the male identity.” I am by no means a feminist, however, I think it is important to distinguish the difference between Neo-feminism (the feminism I believe Roosh to be referring to as destroying the male identity) and the origins of feminism. Similarly, if I am going to make the distinction between the origins of feminism and Neo-feminism, then I think it is equally important to examine the difference between the origins of the patriarchy (as defined here by Roosh) and the development of what the patriarchy has evolved into today (I am reluctant to call it a neo-patriachy because I do not know yet if it has evolved into something changed or new). I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this, or talk at length about any other ideas you may have on the subject.
Thanks, Raymond.
Yes, it is true that the main speaker of the dialogue (Roosh) traces the roots of the patriarchy and shows how it developed along anthropological and economic lines. By demonstrating the scientific reasons for the development of the patriarchy, he thereby implicitly demonstrates its validity. It would not have taken root, or lasted for so long, if it did not have a sound basis in biological fact. This is not to imply the worthlessness of women. On the contrary. The speaker gives women their just due in the development of society.
He then goes on to identify feminism as a ferment for the decomposition of societies.
Now, you have made a valid point in that there is a difference between old-style “feminism” and what you call “neo-feminism”. There is some merit to this view. The “femininst” in America of 1920 was a very different creature than the feminist of 2013. “Classical” feminism was focused on equality of voting rights, removal of repressive legislation, divorce rights, and economic advancement. Most males, apparently, have little problem with most of the tenets of classical feminism. They seem to us to be just, rational, and following logically from 18th century European Enlightenment principles.
But that, Raymond, is where we may all be wrong. As I stated in an earlier article, the nature of women is constantly grasping, constantly striving for greater power over men. It is in their nature to shit-test us, to probe the limits, to push the boundary. They are biologically hard-wired to see what their men are made out of.
Men assumed that classical feminism would stop its demands once fairness and legal parity had been achieved. This assumption turned out to be grievously mistaken.
Why? The answer is to be found in a quote from Cato the Elder which I mentioned in an article some time ago. Cato quite correctly noted that, if given the chance, women will turn equality into sovereignty. In other words, “equality” is a deception. It sounds funsy-wunsy, nice, pretty, and just, but it is a snake in the grass that can never be caught. Because there can be no absolute equality between fundamentally different genders. Women and men have opposite polarity. They complement each other.
This notion of “equality” in everything is a chimera. Beware its seductive power.
This is the reason why the speaker identified feminism (which you call “neo feminism”) as the prime catalyst for the decay of peoples.
Quintus, thank you for taking the time to write an in-depth response. You bring up a point I had not thought of before: That neo-feminism evolved from classical feminism not because of what the women of America have turned it into today, but because of the very inherent nature of feminism. It would be interesting to examine the development of neo-masculinity then.
I think we, as men, have certainly developed a neo-masculinity in response to neo-feminism. Since suffrage has be granted to women, as you stated, men assumed that women would be satisfied with their new found equality. But this taste of equality drove into other area, and phrases like “breaking the corporate glass ceiling” was tossed around in the late 80’s and 90’s. Feminism between the 1930’s and the early 2000’s was largely left unchecked by man in America, predominately because of WWII, Vietnam, the ongoing Cold War, and even the wars in Iraq. I could explain this concept if you would like in a different thread, but this is the conclusion I came to in my readings.
As feminism developed into neo-feminism in the last 20 years, masculinity was forced to take a back-seat in the eyes of society. Anyone who opposed the development of feminism was looked at as a misogynist. I feel I don’t need to elaborate on this idea, as it really speaks for itself. What I have seen, however, is the slow development of neo-masculinity. I believe we are at a critical juncture. Either, masculinity develops into a feminist hating culture that opposes the excessive gains of neo-feminism but eventually subordinates itself to the pressures of society, or masculinity can oppose the excessive gains of neo-feminism by demonstrating that men are not woman-hating creatures but rather the gender that serves as the leader of civilization, as defined in the origins of the patriarch.
When Roosh decided to direct the dialogues towards the origins of the patriarch, I think we have made the first important step in taking back what is slowly becoming lost.
Well and truly spoken.
it is perfect – it is written perfectly and the nay sayers are whiners
Yo, hit me up next time you guys circle jerk on Skype.
Lmao exactly what I was thinking when I heard “modest Italian villa”
this might be the worst article ever written here. which is a shame because from what i read while skimming (i couldnt read the whole thing out of sympathy for quintus) the original idea wasnt a bad one; tracing how gender relations came to be throughout the ages. unfortunately, it was poorly executed on so many levels that any merit the authors ideas might have had were lost in the face of his pretentious latin quotations.
some helpful critique:
1. keep it short and sweet. a blog is not the place for a novel.
2. speaking of that, know your audience. something tells me if you had said aloud to yourself “im going to write a manosphere fanfic and post it to ROK!” you would have second guessed this approach.
3. your characters all sound the same, i felt like i was watching you have a conversation with yourself. apparently all know latin and can drop latin quotations on the fly. and if you are going to use modern characters, use modern english.
ultimately i felt like you wrote this piece to show off that you know latin and can talk like the guy from V for Vendetta more than to guide us through the topic you presented.
Bullshit. This was brilliant. Thought-provoking and engaging, not some top 10 list interspersed with animated GIFs. Nothing against the animated GIFs, sometimes you need junk food and sometimes you want a full meal.
I truly enjoyed this article.
Well thanks, Brian. Glad someone actually read it through.
Here’s a good story I read once. Someone once told the Russian film director Tarkovsky that the beginning of his great film “Stalker” was too boring. Tarkovsky looked at him and said, “Actually it should have been even longer and more boring. That is so the people who should not be in the theatre to see my film will have enough time to leave.”
I greatly enjoyed the Platonic style of the dialogue, bravo! Reading and participating in dialectial arguments is surely one of the better ways to learn. To the haters, a quote from Plato: Οἱ σοφοὶ ἄρα μανθάνουσιν ἀλλ’ οὐχ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς
Against the Wind: much thanks. And seeing that Greek in your comment…well, that just hits the spot.
“So the wise learn but not the ignorant”
file:///C:/Users/geojthomas/Documents/Dialogue.docx
😉
Only looked at the pictures =)
I think, had I a powdered wig on hand, it would have enhanced the experience.
Meeting of the most sexually frustrated philosophers in the world talking about making a difference. Oh my what a joy.
Was this event real or fictitious? Actually and event like this would be quite a good idea. It could be similar to the “World Domination Summit” that the location independent guru Chris Guillebeau has every year, only without the new age, grungy, holier than thou lifestyle design backpacker types with no style nor fashion sense. Something to consider……..
Pearls before swine. An ideal format would have been “10 things that I learned from the Red Pill Symposium (that will increase your closing rate.)”
Thanks, Markus.
can a woman read this and ever understand its worth, Quintus? is this kind of eloquent philosophy just the realm of men who are warrior poets? not trying to say women cannot understand philosophy, but I am asking if you think a man gets more out of this heady disvovery roundtable, Quintus?
inspiring writing, thanks Quintus.
Capital XD:
Do I think a man gets more out of this than a woman?
No, not necessarily.
It is true, on the whole, that men are more likely to engage in this type of philosophical speculation. Woman’s energies are more focused on the feminine arts. It has been very rare in my life to have deep discussions on abstract issues with a woman. And I think the reason is a combination of environmental factors, and heredity factors.
Of course, there are many educated, urbane, witty, and deep thinking women. But unfortunately, in the United States, the general anti-intellectual climate means that they are very few and far between.
But as you can see from the article, I give women their full due in the development of civilization. We are not anti-woman, we are anti-feminist. There is a huge difference.
And I don’t let men off the hook, either. A great many men (most, in fact) are not worth having a conversation with either. I believe Samseau mentioned this in one of his comments in another article. So, please know that I am no friend of the ignorant male, either.
Keep doing what you’re doing. Keep studying, thinking, and writing. I’m glad you found something useful in this piece here.
quintus: have you read this book about anti-intellectualism in the US? it’s an excellent, award winning work:
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
I haven’t read it, Rez, but I definitely agree with the premise. It’s sad. As the race to the bottom continues, so does the barbarization of our cultural and intellectual life. Traditional education and curricula have been thrown out, and been replaced by pure garbage.
Quintus: are you familiar with Nietzsche’s work “The Antichrist.” Two of my favorite quotes come from that work, and I think you will appreciate both. It’s a very short work and I would welcome your thoughts about it.
And by the way, how about sponsoring an online RoK book club? You select a book that we read, and then we discuss it by email or Skype?
“Mankind surely does not represent an evolution toward a better or
stronger or higher level, as progress is now understood. This “progress”
is merely a modern idea, which is to say, a false idea. The European of
today, in his essential worth, falls far below the European of the
Renaissance; the process of evolution does not necessarily mean
elevation, enhancement, strengthening.”
“He {the ideal Nietzsche reader} must be accustomed to living on metaphorical mountain tops—and
to looking upon the wretched ephemeral babble of politics and nationalism as
beneath him. One must make one’s self superior to humanity, in
power, in loftiness of soul,—in contempt.”
Rez, you would do well to study Plotinus’s Enneads one of the greatest metaphysical works ever written and one that Quintus quotes from on his site.
Look up the term emanationism. It is an alternative to the idea of both evolution and creationism.
will order it right now. thank you
If anyone thinks that the ancients knew nothing they should watch this
Best of luck.
It warms my heart to see you mention this, John.
Thanks for your suggestion, Rez. I will pass it around. New suggestions, feedback, and ideas are always welcome. You might also want to make the suggestion yourself by using the email box here on the ROK site. I believe there’s an email address for tips and suggestions.
Awesome dialogue.
Thanks, Sam. (Or should I say, “my dear Samseau” (!)).
I knew you would appreciate this.
Hic est magnus articulus.
Sicut semper et in scriptura colatum hamburger amatores odérunt
I thought this was wonderful. Who writes Socratic dialogues any more in this age of sound bites and Tweets? (Who even knows what a Socratic dialogue is?)
Thanks, Trimegistus.
If I am to understand this text properly, what it would imply is that the 20th century’s defining failure is the advent of public relations/marketing/social engineering.
I believe it was Edward Bernays, Freud’s cousin/brother/relative who stated that people need to be defined not by their needs but by their wants.
The historical nature of patriarchy suggests that choosing a mate is something you simply ‘do’ because it economically viable and practical for living the rest of your life. Today however, with the lies of romance, ‘the one’, abundance of choice and so forth, the end result is a nihilistic society where people take longer to make life changing decisions, marry at older ages, have fewer kids, and produce increasingly weaker offspring.
To my mind, this article suggests that consumerism and the selfishness that has permeated our culture is what has rendered it inert, ineffective and has caused the decline of the nuclear family. As bonecracker alluded to in many of his theories, we are purposefully choosing extinction, purposely spreading bad genes and weak offspring and broken families.
But I wonder if the solution is to regress to a simpler socioeconomic structure such as the ones described here.
My time reading this dialog was evenly split laughing and nodding slowly. Great job capturing the feel of the 19th century translations of Plato! Felt like a riff on The Republic more than anything. I’d love to see this idea fleshed out into a full Socratic discourse
Jesus Christ. Is this a piss take
With this post, Quintus has polarized his audience. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Interesting article. It serves as an introduction to the format of the classical philosophic dialogue and generally raises the level of the discussions here at ROK.
The readership for this type of writing will naturally be more select, but having a column on ancient history and philosophy is a very enriching and welcome addition to this website.
Western men are currently struggling to find meaning in life, and PUA is certainly not the answer (albeit being a useful tool to have in life) and it would be interesting to read about the classic definition of manhood, as well as the lessons of the ancients in living a happy and meaningful life.
This could be the best writing here yet. Very funny. Next time invite poor Catullus.