A Revolt Against The Excesses Of Revolt

I have recently been reading the autobiography of one of my favorite historians, Will Durant.  The book is entitled Dual Autobiography, as it outlines the life not just of Will Durant, but also the life of his wife Ariel.  Mrs. Durant assisted her husband so considerably in the later stages of his monumental multi-volume opus The Story of Civilization that she was given the credit of co-authorship of the final volumes.  Their life struggles and trials make for fascinating reading; I had always admired them for their literary qualities, and was happy to discover that I could admire them for their personal qualities as well.

One passage caught my eye and arrested my attention.  Mrs. Durant describes a lecture she delivered in 1927 to a group of “modern women” (what would now be called feminists).  The topic of the lecture was the ultimate purpose of female “emancipation.”  Daring to take an unpopular line with her ardent assemblage of auditors, she urged women not to cast off their traditional roles too hastily.  Her words are so prescient, and so uncannily accurate, that I must quote them here at length:

I accepted the emancipation of woman as a natural result of the continuing Industrial Revolution, replacing domestic drudgery with gadgets and cans…But if emancipation meant a revolt against marriage, and an exaltation of career above motherhood, it would bring a regrettable masculinity in women and a corresponding effeminacy in men.  What will be the gain when women wear pants and men have soprano voices?…What shall we say of the many abnormalities that have increased in…our age of transition?  The progress of inversion, perversion,…a third sex?…Have we the right to say anything if men wistfully long for a home while women crowd tearooms, cafes, and cabarets?…So I pleaded for moderation, for “a revolt against the excess of revolt.”

Remember that these words were delivered in 1927.  They predict precisely that trajectory of gender relations that has played out in the past eighty years; and unfortunately, we are now forced to admit that Mrs. Durant’s admonitions went unheeded.  This “progress of inversion and perversion” [of the sex roles] has become a reality.  We now have precisely the type of society she warned us to avoid:  female exaltation of career over all else, the deliberate masculinization of women, the corresponding effeminacy of men, and the rise of an androgynous and neutered “third sex” that has completely withdrawn from the human mating game.  These are the general contours of American society in 2014.


The modern man enjoying his leisure.  

Inevitably, another question arises.  Are these changes part of the natural, inevitable process of human evolution, or are they simply symptoms of our civilization’s deepening decay?  The question is a critical one.  For if these changes are a natural outgrowth of technological development, then we are forced to admit that traditional masculinity is doomed.  The human male may himself become something of an evolutionary dead end, fit to join that long list of other extinct genera of humans:  paranthropus bosiei, homo australopithecus, homo neanderthalensis, etc.  Take your pick.

It is not out of the question.  My imagination was fired a few years ago when I read of the discovery in 2003 of homo floresiensis in Indonesia.  It is now generally accepted that this diminutive “hobbit man” constituted a distinct species of human, and may have been alive as late as 14,000 years ago.  Imagine that:  an entirely different species of human, coexisting with modern man on remote islands in Indonesia, possibly even up until historical times.  That there existed ages in which more than one species of human walked the earth is for me an incredible concept.  Only last month, news reports announced the discovery in China of another new species of Stone Age human, called “Red Deer People.”  This type apparently also existed as recently as 11,000 to 14,000 years ago.  In evolutionary terms, 14,000 years is the blink of an eye.  What a strange, wondrous world this is!  These new discoveries remind us just how complex, unexpected, and diverse the story of man is.  We are only beginning to scratch the surface of our history.


Homo floresiensis on display

The point here is that social changes, in the long run, can have serious consequences for the survival of the species.  The deliberate destruction of the masculine ethic in the West may, over time, set modern man down the path of extinction.    Those bloated, wretched freaks lurching about in the aisles of the average suburban Walmart store may be a frightening harbinger of humanity’s future.

But I cannot bring myself to believe this.  This would be a future too dark to contemplate.  I prefer to believe that our current social woes are a temporary hiccup in the later stages of that Industrial Revolution which has haunted mankind since the 1780s.  No doubt old James Watt, tinkering with his steam engines in England at that time, could never have foreseen the insidious consequences of his revolution.  Yet I curse him just the same.  Women have not become “emancipated” so much as industrialized.  They have become drafted into a vast slave army of anonymous drones, willingly or unwillingly, whose function it is to slave away in meaningless jobs, so that they can become better consumers before the altar of the moneyed oligarchs.

Call me delusional.  But I prefer to take the position that feminist excesses and abuses will eventually prompt a furious backlash from both men and women.  Mrs. Durant’s exhortation for a “revolt against the excess of revolt” will become a reality, as the oligarchs running Western societies realize that they cannot sit atop a social dung heap and govern effectively.  A corrective movement will be born (or may already be here) that will seek to restore a natural and healthy balance among the unhappy genders.  If both men and women have degenerated and lost their previous vigor, perhaps this is due in America to the unparalleled period of ease and luxury of the decades since the 1930s.  As Tacitus says,

Nam militares artes per otium ignotae, industriosque aut ignavos pax in aequo tenet. [The arts of war are lost in a world of leisure, and peace levels equally both the man of action and the dullard. Annals XII.12]

The dullard and the man of action become equal quantities in times of leisure.  In this world of tumult, this cyclone of conflict, we can only tend to the sacred flames in our innermost temples, and take care that their flickering lights do not go out.  For my part, I refuse to become what the prevailing social conditions want me to become.  I refuse to accept homo Walmartensis as the prototype of man’s future.  I refuse to let the light die out.  And if that means we go the way of the Neanderthal, or some other evolutionary dead end, then so be it.  We will still be nobler and greater than the forces that destroy us.  For, to paraphrase Pascal, as we die we will know we are dying; whereas of its victory, a heedless and unfeeling society will know nothing.

Read More:  Nothing Is Permanent

111 thoughts on “A Revolt Against The Excesses Of Revolt”

  1. The total destruction of masculinity is actually impossible to achieve, I would say. As such, if civilization collapses, the natural order of women needing men is re-asserted in a terrifically bloody way. This leaves room for masculinity to re-assert itself, and the pattern repeats. As was said in much fiction, “All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again…”
    Now, combine civilizational collapse with some other kind of horrific disaster, asteroid impact, yellowstone caldera eruption, nuclear war, etc.. and yeah, extinction is a possibility, but those are events that could produce extinction on their own, and for them to coincide would take a dice roll the universe has not ever seen.

    1. 90% of women simply don’t have the genetic brain power to make the technological backbone of society run…. It may well be true that ‘some’ women can be as smart or even smarter than men, and that ‘some’ women can be great innovators and leaders, but by and large most simply don’t have the capacity….
      Just because Hilary can fly around the world as Secretary of State and hold forth with world leaders doesn’t mean every woman can do that… in fact for every hard assed, successful, career woman there are 10 men just as capable and 9 women who are incapable.
      It doesn’t matter how much you legislate and force companies to hire women and have women board directors and etc. There are not enough of the 1 in 10 women to fill the spots on an equal footing with men.
      I am sure some dogs can hunt mice, but they are not cats… I am sure an iphone could be made into a webserver but not one that can server a million pages a minute…. I am sure a Ferrari can be drive along a muddy road, but fuck me I’d rather have a Jeep for that trip.

      1. Hillary…
        First she was the first lady, and didn’t accomplish much there.
        Then she suddenly wanted to represent New York, and wasn’t much loved by New Yorkers.
        Then she wanted to be president, but someone else had more money.
        Then she wanted to be vice president, but politics intervened.
        Then she wanted to be secretary of state, and distinguished herself by allowing a nuclear Iran, being completely surprised by the Arab Spring, a near genocide in Syria, a debacle in Benghazi, A near fully belligerent North Korea, and a Russia that knows it can invade and we’ll do nothing. Yaay Hillary!
        Now she wants to be president.
        Dear god, with her record, I would fear for my life.
        But she gets away with complete incompetence, even rewarded for it, because vagina.

    2. Correct,
      However, the universe is always rolling the dice, and it is only a matter of time.

    3. I have yet to read an article on Sir John Glubbs fate of empires. Can I write one for the rok?

  2. It won’t happen, because we’re not living in a vacuum. There are other societies in the world, and with current immigration policies those societies are colonizing America (I assume you’re referring to America/Western society in this article).
    There is already a more patriarchal society that is rapidly taking over Europe and may start slowly taking over America: Islam. In the past Roissy has mentioned this: women are doing what they always do, moving away from pussified beta men into the arms of a strong, masculine man; there are Anglo/European women who are converting and rushing into Muslim society, for example the wife of the dead Tsarnev brother (Boston Marathon bomber).
    Nature always self-corrects. Currently, the self-correction is the Caliphate.

    1. You’re crazy if you think the USA will ever kowtow to Islam. Not gonna happen. I know I will not submit to them and many in this country feel the same way.
      Unfortunately and sadly, the self-correcting you’re talking about is ultimately going to come from armed conflict. I just hope that it is not at the hands of Extremist Islam, because if they win in the USA, it will be far, far worse than anything we can possibly imagine. It will make Nazi Germany look like kindergarten.

      1. I agree that the USA as a whole won’t become Muslim. The most likely result in my opinion will be the USA fracturing into ethnic groups, with Arab and African Muslims being one of the noisiest groups. This is still not a good result for America.

      2. islam was a completely bogus enemy dreamed up to keep the military industrial complex in business after the cold war ended….. if there were really terrorists they could be causing havoc on a daily basis……
        I mean imagine the day after 9/11…. 10 guys with AKs strafing the 405 rush hour traffic…. then darting off to do the same in Texas and then Florida…. total havoc…..
        Think of the things that you personally could pull off just with a plastic gun from a toy store and an angry attitude… it might take them weeks to catch you…. high jack a petrol tanker and set it on fire on the golden gate bridge etc. etc. etc. rinse and repeat….
        terrorists my ass…. the IRA were real terrorists and they cause real acts of terror… and they deliberately kept it low key, just enough to make a point to the UK Govt.
        We’re told the islamic terrorists are out for blood to destroy the infidels… one tincan bomb at the boston marathon is the best they can come up with… fuck me….. it’s a joke. My granny could cause more trouble.

        1. Of course that bearded illiterate goatfuckers will not be leading any social change.
          Initial Christians were bearded towel head illiterate goat fuckers.
          So how did Christianity win ? Elites reformed it ! And then declared it a state religion and voila – you have pope in Rome.

        2. More ignorant blather, someone else? The fact whether you like it or not is that early christianity was embraced by the people of the Empire because any of the alternatives were worse (Paganism and even more decay…)

        3. People of the Empire ? Do you even know of what time span are you talking about ? First of all, until it became state religion, Christianity never became religion of majority. However, elites saw an opportunity with Christianity. Hence first council of Nicaea happened, and Christianity was reformed and institutionalized

        4. If a large portion of the empire populace had not adopted christianity, the emperor WOULD HAVE NEVER deeemed necessary declare it the State religion. Paganism is a lot more useful as State religion than christianity whether you like it or not. By the 4th century large portions of the empire had Christian majorities. Granted they were not majority empirewide yet but they were well close to it, specially since “liberated” pagan women aborted their children and the overall birthrate of the empire didn´t get to replace their dead in battle (Oh there were plenty of herbs used for that purpose, even the Bible (in greek) made a reference to banning such practice).

        5. Dude, there was good reason why emperors like Nero tortured and persecuted Christians. Bible wants us to believe they did it because they were sons of Satan or what not.
          In fact, they were afraid of Christianity, because it undermined their rule. It said that only God is above us, not Emperors. Hence they institutionalized it. So the Patriarchs could declare whatever dogma they wanted. And of course, they were allied with Emperors and other rulers.
          Christianity was of course, present across the Empire, but it was far from being a religion of majority. Christians were usually present in large cities or such. Just google maps and you will see.
          Check out 300 AD.
          Intellectuals of the time, could not stand decadence of Rome, and idealized barbaric societies considering them moral natural and pure. Christianity offered solution for both ruling classes and the mob.

      3. Wait a minute. What if elites figure out that Islam suits them ? (and it does, and always did.)

      4. “You’re crazy if you think the USA will ever kowtow to Islam”
        A hundred years ago,you would substitute ‘Islam’ for Socialism.
        Seventy Five years ago,you would substitute ‘Islam’ for Feminism.
        Fifty years ago you would substitute ‘Islam’ for ‘Gun control’.
        Twenty five years ago you would substitute ‘Islam’ for Gay and Animal Rights’.
        Guess which is the fastest growing religion. Oh wait,you already do.

    2. This argument has a lot of merit. The natural fecundity of the Islamic populations, as well as the masculine ethic of Islam, will likely have greater and greater appeal as social groups look towards a stern ethic to impose discipline on corrupt and degenerate states. How far this will go is uncertain, though. There are counter-arguments.
      Is it out of the question to see southern Spain reclaimed for Islam in the next century? A sort of reconquista in reverse, happening 600 years after Islam was expelled from Europe?
      There is no humorist like history.

      1. Perhaps Frank Herbert’s Dune was right, only a Fremen like people, inspired by faith, prophesy (and “spice”) will be strong enough to overthrow the Empire.

      2. “Is it out of the question to see southern Spain reclaimed for Islam in the next century? A sort of reconquista in reverse, happening 600 years after Islam was expelled from Europe?”
        – Possibly through war, but not through European women marrying Muslim men. Muslim populations grow much faster than other populations, so Europe would probably be overrun in the future by indigenous Muslim populations (Arabs, South Asians, North Africans, etc), through war. History is proof that culture has been controlled and altered by the conquerors, not traders. The Moors influenced Europe in the medieval ages because they came to Spain as conquerors, not emissaries or traders as modern day Muslims in Europe or the West today do. So for a Reconquista in reverse would only happen if Islam actually conquered Europe and the West through force (war), not through intermarriages or cultural exchange. Modern western women will sleep with even African Swahili tribe members if they manage to carry themselves as alpha NBA players. So it’s no big deal if western women would sleep with Muslim men, because western women in their promiscuity are for everyone and everybody.

      3. I doubt Islam will take over, but it will influence other movements in the world. If Islam gets even as close to as far as you’re saying, there’d be war. I don’t think Islam can go in conjunction with a society that has even somewhat Western values like free speech or free press or even the freedom of religion. Islam also has some massive structural deficiencies. Most of the Muslim world is tribalistic and some places of the Muslim world are entering rapid stages of depopulation (ex. Iran).

        1. for the christian world to fight the muslims, they would have to become like the muslims.
          Personally, I don’t see the christian world becoming stern as a particularly bad thing. Puritan Ethos would suck, but a reformation of many of the christian faiths to combat islam would likely be a positive step for growth.

        2. It doesn’t have to be Puritan. Russians are Eastern Orthodox, for example, and they do not lack a set of cojones.

        3. The Muslim world is a piece of shit man. The place is in shambles. In many parts of the Muslim world, they don’t even have enough clean drinking water (ex. Pakistan). You’re giving Islam way too much credit. You do know that it was the spike in food prices that caused the Arab Spring, right? If that were to happen again, you’d see way more turbulence there. Those places are poor and shitty as fuck. Any sort of shock could easily send the Muslim world into a death spiral.

        4. Don’t compare Puritanism (or most forms of Protestantism) to Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity is closer in its structure to Hinduism than it is to Protestantism. Orthodox Christianity is a traditional eastern religion (like Hinduism); Protestantism is a non-traditional western religion.

        5. How come, I didn’t even know there were a bazillion gods in Eastern Christianity. The fact is that even though Eastern Orthodoxy is a heresy, it is much closer to classic Christianity (aka. Catholic church before Vatican II) than Protestantism ever was.

        6. Religion isn’t about belief; it’s about tradition and structure in society. Protestantism doesn’t even have any sort of a class system. Traditional religions like Hinduism, Orthodox Christianity (both Greek and Russian), traditional Islam (not fundamentalist), and even Buddhism are more similar to one another than they are to Protestantism.
          Protestantism is inherently anti-traditional. I agree that Eastern Orthodoxy is much closer to classic Christianity than Protestantism. Protestantism is nothing like classic Christianity and Roman Catholicism is much closer to the Roman pagan tradition than many people would thing.

      4. Quintus if it wasn’t for your oaf of a President Clinton there wouldn’t be any Bonian Muslims. They started to over populate and Christians did what they are truly good at depopulation. Systematic and ruthless. The Croats and Serbs did not enjoy their values being changed.

        1. The Croats (Catholic) fought, side by side, with the Bosnians (Muslims) against the Serbs (Orthodox).

        2. Both sides were killing Bosnian Muslims. The old saying of your enemy of my my enemy is my friend.the Serbians and the Croations both being denominations of Christians have hated the Muslims.nearly as much as they have hated each other. And yet despite all this my point still stands they were culling Muslims bc the muslims were forcing their values on their society.

        3. Which values? Bosnian Muslims (especially at that time) were mostly Muslim in name only. The only thing that set them aside from the Serbs were there names and a few festivals here and there. Years of communist rule left little to distinguish.

        4. That they were wearing tents, over breeding, chanting at 4.30 am. Not to conflate some issues arising from irredentalism but those were the main reasons that they were put up the sword.you can search C.hitchens he writes a compelling account of the attack on Bosnian Muslims who were marginalising Serbs and Croats when there were demographic changes.

      5. i don’t see a bunch of towel heads taking over any time soon…. they can’t even run their own countries without dictators like Sadam to keep them in order… how the fuck are some scrawny, angry, religiously pious goons going to take over the western nations.

      6. Um, no. Anti-Islamism is about as high as it has ever been, nobody anywhere is looking for a ‘stern ethic’ to impose on anyone, and the muslim community is so laughably disjointed that they can’t even get their own countries to agree on anything. Stop being paranoid. Girls like the wife of the boston marathon bomber are freak outliers. Feminism is the rule of the day.

      7. The Islamic culture will go the same way as Christian (western) culture given another 50 years or so. And that is to be expected given that industrialisation and all the wealth that comes with that did not arrive in Islamic countries until well after it began in Europe and North America. In some countries, like Afghanistan, it still hasn’t started.
        There is an article on the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27142647 which is relevant. In Qatar, a wealthy Islamic country, they are already beginning to see the signs: “Local media report that 40% of Qatari marriages now end in divorce. More
        than two-thirds of Qataris, adults and children, are obese.”

    3. ” In the past Roissy has mentioned this: women are doing what they always do, moving away from pussified beta men into the arms of a strong, masculine man; there are Anglo/European women who are converting and rushing into Muslim society, for example the wife of the dead Tsarnev brother (Boston Marathon bomber).”
      – The Muslim men (Muslim ‘alphas’) would then not have it better than their Christian counterparts in that case. For the Anglo/European women, being modernized sluts themselves, would actually seek ‘strong’ Muslim men as alphas, not knowing that these Muslim ‘alphas’, though being alpha-like like Western alphas, would actually marry these sluts. So essentially the Muslim ‘alpha’ loses if he marries a western slut, who wants to wear a burqa and marry only to satisfy her own fetish for alphas, irrespective of religion. A slut is a slut, even if she is a western, european/Anglo slut who chooses to repent and wear a hijab to marry a Muslim. Marriage to an ex-slut is essentially a lose-lose situation. An alpha marrying a slut is essentially a loser. Muslim ‘alphas’ only win if they choose to keep western sluts as concubines, which is highly unlikely as Islam promotes polygamy and inter-marriage with Christians and Jews. So the Muslim alpha becomes a loser cuckold beta when he chooses to marry the western slut’s over fucked body.

    4. It should be no surprise that Islam is spreading across Europe. When you smash traditional society you create a vacuum. The people that did it think that they can fill it with wishy washy multiculturalism, what they are finding is that Islam is asserting its will. Realistically the only way for supporters of globalism/equalism or whatever you call it to prevent the rise of Islam is to abandon multiculturalism and resort to totalitarianism to force equality onto everyone.

        1. Anyways Switzerland is dying as well and most of their women are not fit for motherhood, so….

        2. there is no s in anyway. also what proof do you have of this statement you have made?

        3. Name a country that is doing better than Switzerland. I didn’t think it was perfect but it is much closer to my ideal state than America or any other the other 30+ countries I’ve been to.

        4. One can travel from the EU to Switzerland without passing through immigration. Within a month of opening up their borders, Switzerland had a bunch of illegals in the streets selling Swiss watch knock-offs for € 50.

    5. It’s funny how some men still believe the western world will be overrun by ‘patriarchal’cultures, such as Islam. Apparently they can’t understand that patriarchy/traditionalism always dies within a few generations after technology hands women a direct path to independence from men. Women do not seek “strong, masculine men.” They seek status, in whatever forms it comes in.

      1. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism across the world shows that technology does not destroy patriarchy or tradition. Indeed, Islamic radicals have complex ideologies that reconcile Western technical superiority with Islam allowing them to embrace their religion but also pursue western style educations.

    6. I disagree with your last sentence. Stop being so paranoid. There does not exist any muslim ‘conspiracy’ to take over the west. Muslims can barely take over their own governments and have way too much infighting to agree on anything. Read the book ‘No God but God’ by Reza Aslan to see why ‘the caliphate’ is nothing but a schizophrenic delusion made up by christian idiots.

    7. Not to mention Western men marrying Muslim women (who still respect masculinity).

  3. Masterful writing, and a damn great morsel to find in that autobiography. Sad that a revered woman’s heed for social moderation ultimately fell on deaf ears.
    I for one believe this shift in the gender-dynamic status quo is merely a product of a culture doomed to fail or evolve from it. They say all great empires fall – perhaps societies in the West are advancing technologically and economically due to this new social paradigm we observe, but look at the people – the meat and potatoes, the guts and bones of what makes a community/nation/empire.
    We ARE still growing. Are we happy? Studies have shown women are not necessarily happier with their new roles they have fought for over the past 3 generations – in fact studies show that women are generally less happy than men. Is this a mechanism that is doomed to fail? Maybe. Only time will tell,

  4. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but history was not written in ink and parchment, but with blood and soil and always will be.

  5. The question is:
    Why do you think homo sapiens should survive?
    I am not so sure we should be so proud of ourselves. The percentage of population who achived anything wortwhile is far under 1%. They should count more as an outlier, a statistical abnormality.

    1. And not just that but that under 1% is nearly all male, like 99.999…% male. I made an exception for Madame Curie. The other half of our human race (women) are completely worthless. I can’t lie, if the apocalypse came tomorrow, I’d be somewhat giddy, to know that all the iwhores and in their yoga pants would be burnt asunder. Their tears would be my happiness.

      1. men need somewhere to plant their seeds…. women are the fertile fields to plough.

      2. don’t make an exception. It is becoming increasingly evident that Curie was doing little more than ‘assisting’ her husband’s experiments, as the acclaim she was receiving for being a ‘brilliant woman’ was far greater than her husband would have received for his work in radiation.
        Many greater researchers lived and died in near obscurity. Allowing his wife to take the credit ensured that the name of Curie would be immortalized for eternity.
        Not that she was worthless, she was a gifted bottle washer.

      3. “And not just that but that under 1% is nearly all male, like 99.999…% male.”
        You’re being generous. The fact is it is ALL male. Madame Curie was indeed a intelligent woman, but without her husband she would be unknown today.

    2. Because other species have achieved so much more than Homo Sapiens, you mean? Not everyone in society is useful but the people who do achieve something worthwhile wouldn’t be able to do so without civilization, and civilization can’t exist without the hordes of people who don’t achieve anything worthwhile (by your estimation). I would say building a family and raising functional, useful members of society is pretty worthwhile myself. I’m sorry everyone isn’t Mozart.
      It’s kind of required that outstanding deeds be achieved by only a small segment of society, because otherwise they wouldn’t, you know, stand out. That’s how relative metrics work. You’re like the mirror image of someone complaining about poverty. Poverty is relative and contextual, and it will always exist, even if in 100 years it means only having one flying car instead of three like the average human. Excellence will always be achieved, but it will never be achieved by more than a small segment of society, no matter its magnitude.

  6. One thing I’ve noticed is, if you let feminism go on long enough, it starts looking like the “patriarchy” that they love to hate so much. When enough female “liberation” has taken place it is women that try to limit it.
    Their pursuit of “work-life balance” is simply a way of saying “I don’t want to sacrifice my family to be a corporate drone. Virtually no feminist organization publicly promotes having children without a father anymore due to the massive damage done to children over the past few decades. Neither do any of them publicly promote the continued destruction of marriage. A broke, increasingly beta, daddy/husband (the US government) is not pleasing them as much as they’d hoped but they’re dismayed. When they’ve broken the only alpha that was willing to marry them, where do they turn? Putin doesn’t want them.
    Women themselves are becoming afraid of their own “freedom”. Feminism didn’t elevate women to the level of men, it lowered them to the ranks of male sacrifice that has always been necessary to keep civilization going. They are now the drones that they demanded to be and their brains are hiccuping, angry at the fact that they want/need men after all.
    Give women enough of what they demand and it will be women that dismantle feminism.

    1. >> Give women enough of what they demand and it will be women that dismantle feminism. <<
      Provided women are capable of any scientific reasoning, like cause-effect.

      1. Women are not at all capable of the reasoning needed to understand long term cause and effect. They will never dismantle the feminism monster that they created. They will only double down on it’s dysfunction, completely expecting different results.

    2. “Feminism didn’t elevate women to the level of men, it lowered them to the ranks of male sacrifice that has always been necessary to keep civilization going.”
      Very well said. The average women is now Society’s grunt who must sacrifice for all. Women want to be so much like men. Now they have no choice. In the coming decades, expect the taxes extracted from single working women to make up a large portion of the overall tax base.
      Bitches, be careful what you wish for.

  7. These assumptions are based on an ever-increasing, or at a minimum retaining, our current standard of living. Do you guys believe there will never be another Great Depression? What about a worldwide Great Depression that makes the 1930s look like a picnic.
    I’m not saying it’s around the corner, but I feel it may happen in my lifetime. That’s a game changer. Just like there are no atheists in a foxhole, feminists and careerist women only exist as long as the economic status quo does. Back in the ’30s, it was survival mode … no one cared about social justice, homos, or feminism. Nor will they again.

    1. By any objective measure, we’re already in a depression right now. The government is lying about it and trying to cover it up, so that they won’t have to do anything about it.

      1. Obama’s spending all his time on “Income Inequality,” instead of focusing on incentives to get the private sector to create jobs in the USA, as opposed to outsourcing them to India and China.
        If Obama’s really focused on Income Inequality, why doesn’t he surrender his own generous salary and pension?
        “Do as I say, not as I do…”

      2. Indeed. The depression is being hidden by a move by so-called “quantitative easing.”

        1. QE isn’t even that big of a deal. Anyone that understands basic accounting knows QE is just an asset swap. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand basic accounting, so you get many myths that pop up about QE.

    2. The social security bomb will go off into the mid to late 2020s barring some sort of economic renaissance. Choices will need to be made. It will likely lead to substantial economic contraction, and social strife. Given the racial makeup of the US at the time, think South Africa not Argentina.

  8. The postmodernist man states that the era we live in is the natural outcome of history. According to them, we are living in the most developed state of society.
    This is of course, a fallacy. There is absolutely no organic development in history. Our time is the product of ideologies and influences. The recent diplomatic conflict between Russia and the USA reminds us of that. Russia is currently existing on the diplomatic stage because it is going against western ideologies. In doing so, Russia exults our ideologies, feminism, homosexuality, imperialism are some of them…
    There are two theories of evolution – Darwinism and Lamarckism – One is English, the other is French. As many theories, the one dominating today is the one that was originated in English. This makes sense, history is written by winners, and on an economically standpoint the Anglophone sphere has won.
    Lamarckism is a powerful and dangerous theory, it states that self-improvement is possible, our genes can over generations be altered. I believe that most of the people reading this post are from a Lamarck tradition.
    The basic precept is the following, take a giraffe, if the animal stretches his neck to reach the leaves on the top of the tree, the neck will get longer and longer, and the future generations will survive since the ancestors where stretching their necks.
    Darwinism, however, states that the Giraffes surviving will be the ones born with a long neck.
    Our society today is Darwinist at the fullest, since our youngest age we are feed with darwinist principles. Capitalism is Darwinist, mating is Darwinist …
    Darwinism, and this is very important, supports the neoliberalism agenda. For that reason, the theory is put forward as true. Think about the self-interested agent.
    It is impossible however, to prove Darwin theory.
    We have lost what made America great, we have instilled Darwinism to the extent that we have lost our ability to transform ourselves.
    No, the world today is not the natural outcome of history.
    Yes we can change people, yes we can find a meaning as a collective entity.
    Yes feminism, crony capitalism, corporations, as we know today are diseases that are the result of ideologies.
    Let us write the future and let us not accept ideologies that pretend to be the result of evolution because we cannot take it anymore.

    1. darwin has some place – eg. american slavery selectively picked only the strongest and today black americans are super athletes….
      it has also been proven that animals breeding under harsh conditions will somehow mysteriously pass on genes to their offspring that are more useful to survive …. eg. the long neck gene is given in times when leaves are hard to reach.
      DNA is more like a software program with an agenda than a flat record of traits.

  9. Well again, this can only continue as long as fossil fuels are cheap and widely available. If they run out without an equally cheap and abundant method to replace them (and there are many that believe they will), the standard of living is going to decline drastically, and the shock will upset this equation.
    “Revolt against the excess of revolt.” It’s a good term. The were some great strides in human achievement and freedom beginning in the 17th century. But the postmodern phase of this movement, gaining ground primarily in the 1960’s, has just revealed the utter solipsism and pedantry that exists at its core. Things tend toward extremes and not balance.
    How is the best way to combat this? With ourselves. I suspect more and more babies will be born from people that have unplugged from the Matrix of the cult of modernity, so to speak.

    1. We aren’t going to run out of fossil fuels for 150 years, and that assumes we have found all we are going to find.

      1. Finding it isn’t the issue. Extraction processes have become more efficient and cost-effective. In the not-to-distant future there will be an inflection point in the prices of fossil fuels and other energy sources. Fossil fuels will always have some value but it will likely gradually decline in use in the future and energy companies, like the one I work for now, are well prepared for the change.

        1. current alternative energy methods are all a joke…. windmills, solar etc. use more fossil fuels to create – than the energy they give back…. the oil companies are laughing in our faces….

        2. Emphasis being “current.” They are ENERGY companies- not Oil companies. And the largest ones are strategic enough to operate in a market with a wide variety of energy sources.

        3. incorrect term. ‘fossil fuels’ aka hydrocarbons have been recently discovered on other planets and in meteors.
          Thus the ‘fossil’ concept is illegitimate. Simple hydrocarbons have been found to exist at great depths in stupendous quantities… we may run out of easily-accessible gas and oil, but to run out of so-called fossil fuels we would literally have to strip the entire earth’s crust to a depth of almost 8000 meters.

        4. Yeah, that’s what they said about fracking too. And again, they are not ‘fossil’ fuels, they are Hydrocarbons.

        5. Yes, but energy efficiency is always going to be improving and people are not going to be making those improvements themselves. That is going to be the role of energy companies.

    2. In the middle ages there were frequent panics about running out of firewood. In the industrial revolution there were panics about coal running out and price spikes etc…. humans never learn anything….. innovation always finds away…. in fact it’s pretty clear that Tesla had energy generation methods far and beyond the oil monopolies we have to suffer today…. whether by accident or design his ideas never saw the light of day….
      wardenclyffe looks like something from a science fiction movie…. the technology is there….. it’s 1800s technology…. we don’t really ‘need’ oil… it’s just that Jose drunk on Tequilla, crashing his fusion powered wrap drive into the sun is more trouble than it’s worth… keep him in his F100 and make him buy gasoline.

  10. >>> as the oligarchs running Western societies realize that they cannot sit atop a social dung heap and govern effectively. A corrective movement will be born (or may already be here) that will seek to restore a natural and healthy balance among the unhappy genders. <<<
    What is this statement based on? It does not sound logical.
    The moneyed oligarchs have zero incentive in bringing of the old traditional model. Just on the contrary, they love the dividends they receive from the destruction of the traditional family – more consumers, more taxpayers, more money spills out of the family, the races get blurred, the sexual differences get blurred. People get easy to control, the system gets even more efficient.
    Besides, who needs strong masculine alpha men in a technologically aided society? More and more manual jobs get replaced by machines. The creative jobs get filled by nerds, the paper pushing jobs get filled by women.
    Women might still crave alpha men but I see more and more girls going for the softer boys. Sometimes, I see couples from behind and I wonder who’s the man, who’s the woman. They usually both look so feminine I wouldn’t mind fucking both of them … together. LOL
    The future humankind looks bleak – genderless, big head, weak body.

    1. That was precisely my point. The moneyed oligarchs are profiting from the degeneracy that’s out there. They have zero incentive to restore the old model.
      But I am also wondering if they will eventually realize that, if they want to rule over an orderly society and keep their money, there has to be some social order. Not a pile of shit.
      Said another way, the oligarchs are on the same ship we are on. If the ship goes down, so do they.

      1. But their ship is not sinking, it’s sailing at full speed.
        Just look at their model cities – London, NY, Tokyo, Shanghai to name the few. They are booming and the population is more than happy to play by the rules.
        The future model is 90% of the population living in large urban areas working slave jobs, paying the mortgage and having two weeks of holiday. They no longer need a lot people to work in farms and majority of the manual jobs are already replaced by robots.
        The unleashing of the power of female sexuality has given them twofold benefits. One they have doubled the number of tax payers and second they control the little remaining real men by allowing women to freely be sexually promiscuous. The female sexuality is far more subtle and shall we say advanced than the male’s. Sex for them is a power tool, not a pleasure movement.
        Which is why I say, every time you fuck them you submit to them, regardless of whether is just fuck-and-go type of sexual act. Every time you fuck a slut you further cement the foundations of the current system.
        And every time you fuck another man’s woman you commit a crime against civilisation as we know it.

  11. I always stop whatever I’m doing to read a post by Quintus Curtius.
    I’m never disappointed.

  12. This shit just cycles. We’re probably on the very beginning of a very conservative shift in society right now (or at least that’s the vibe I’m getting). Things go too far one way and swing back in the opposite direction later.

  13. “Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions.”
    Friedrich Nietzsche expresses my fear. Are there historical examples where we have avoided this?

  14. Ultimately you cannot fight with hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.
    The original ideals of sufferage and the like, held that women would be as intelligent and capable as men, if they were schooled and educated and offered the same opportunities as men. The concept was that women were not offered education, employment, positions of authority and power solely because they were women….. fair enough on face value….
    This however is just not the case. I can already see in my daughter of 5 years old, that her hormonal setup, biological sexual orientation and her drive is centered around more feminine pursuits…. her ‘boyfriend’ of her age is busy counting, calculating, looking at maps, figuring out how far they are from home and how to get back, how to kick, punch, play aggressive sports etc. etc.
    The two of them side by side are worlds apart.
    I am beginning to think that the same probably holds true for race as well. It’s fair enough to say that you should not be prejudiced towards a black man, or some ethnic race, but in all honesty his genetic make up, created by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution in easy tropical climates where fruit drops off the tress year around…..and fish could be plucked from the local coral reef with a basic spear…. didn’t require him to think outside the box.
    His white peers in the freezing north not only had a much harder time getting food, but also had to prepare every year for a terrible and arduous winter…… For example : The reason the Swiss are famous for their watches is because every winter they were snowed up in the mountains for months, and they needed something small and precious to make while they passed the winter, holed up.
    Meanwhile black man on the beach, need only reach out for another mango or papaya and hook another snapper from the lagoon and he could get back to fucking his misses….. thus is genetic evolution has not been as demanding.
    There is good reason why american black athletes excel…. 75% of the slaves died before they even landed from the boats…. only the very strongest survived and thus today make amazing athletes…. watch makers not so much.

    1. The sad thing is that your daughter’s boyfriend, who has such exuberance and promise now, will probably fall behind inexplicably in our schools (speaking statistically here). There is a malaise among the males of the younger generations. Though this boy shows great promise of being a cool, capable guy, and your daughter seems to not have near his capacities, he will probably drop the ball and become a loser, as so many guys do, and your daughter will outcompete him.

    2. I get your point, but I don’t think there is anything genetically or evolutionary different in the intelligence of other types of men (black, white, Mexican, etc.) or for the most part in women as well. Women do exp. different hormones and have higher/lower chemical imbalances then men in those certain hormones, so that plays a huge part in determining what we consider intelligent.
      In both cases, especially men/men, it is more about the culture. Women, even with education, schooling, and opportunities, usually fall short bc of their culture. They don’t have the chance to grow up in the same type of locker room environment or get exposed to the same conversations as most men have at a young age and that is what causes the intelligence gap. It’s the same with “men” becoming more effeminate. Nothing to do with genetics or evolutionary cycles, as much as it has to do with the culture.
      While I don’t think it is an excuse in today’s world (and w/o going into too much detail), modern blacks in America were intentionally set back hundreds of years from slavery/Jim Crow Laws, so yes the average white American should have some sort of head start. Blacks were not even allowed to read in peace until the last 70 years or so, and there are still people alive (grandfather included) that had to migrate from the south (great migration) to even have a chance to live a decent humane life. Many grandparents in this same time frame lost the opportunity of (if they even ever knew) teaching business/etc. to their children, and here is my gen. the children of those baby boomers.
      Debunking myths: look at Eminem the rapper, clearly a cultural thing..and amazing athletes that are black are more so bc slaves were bred like cattle. You wanted the big strong ones to work on a plantation and thus the bigger stronger men, were bred with women of the same qualities..and out pops some future MVP lineage, but I can’t say the ones who made the voyage from the boats do not also account for healthier genes (cosign).

      1. Sorry. Do not buy that ‘equal’ thing.
        We had a TV team here in my white country discussing the fact that the Jamaicans were so impressive sprinters. They went to a coach with the ‘no difference’ mindset who stated that ‘of course there is no difference between them and us, they just train better than us’. They took this argument to a sprinter coach who laughed out loud: ‘We know everything about how they train. No secrets there. They’re just genetically more suited for the sprint’. The latter knew of course a lot more of what he was talking about.
        Now we all want to think that the brain is an equal ‘muscle’ for all races. But why should it be the only one? A lot of politically incorrect science shows the contrary: There are vast differences between the races. Like the orientals being more intelligent than us whites.

        1. In the instance of the sprinters I agree. I made that point with slaves being ‘bred’. The different aspects of physical prowness in different races are apparent, but they too are beggining to dwindle.
          I see how you group the brain as any other muscle and while I agree that is true (it is a muscle), there is not enough empirical evidence to support intelligence being passed to offspring or the limitation of growth (ie: if you have a lazy man with no drive in one race and a man of another race who is hell bent on educating themself, who will be more intelligent?). You cannot genetically pass on economics, children who have financially savvy parents or those who are around business/econ. pick it up as they mature.
          Orientals being more intelligent (better educated) than Americans as a whole has a lot to do with culture, in my opinion once again. Overseas they spend more time in school and still pride themselves on the math and sciences, and many of the ones here in the states are either first or second gen. Americans, with a strong family background and an even stronger incentive to get ahead.

        2. You can’t say that. That would make you “racist” in the eyes of the PC Media.

  15. Of particular (and important) note is that Ariel married Will when she was fifteen years old, and they were married for nearly 70 years. Even at that tender age she knew what she was doing and put her money where her mouth was.

  16. Excellent piece!
    The only thing Mrs. Durant was missing in the quoted excerpt is the term “metrosexual.”
    It is strange how often I now hear and read the term “enjoy the decline.” That really is all that is left to do.

    1. Whenever everyone thinks the decline is coming all at once, that’s a red flag. My first instinct is that all of these people are wrong. Declines don’t come when everyone expects them to come. They come because some crazy shit happens and throws everything out of whack. Declines don’t happen slowly; they happen suddenly and are usually caused by something really unexpected and crazy.

  17. > and the rise of an androgynous and neutered “third sex” that has completely withdrawn from the human mating game.
    Can you honestly blame them in this environment

  18. Good writing. One man going against the tide. Reaching into his pockets and finding
    his testicles is good for civilization. Everything in the oligarch control grid tells you not to. Good times to be alive.

  19. I don’t think technology is the issue. Rather I think it is the type of society we have (democracy) in which voting blocks (women) vote themselves privileges at the expense of men. For example, you can’t fire a woman who becomes pregnant. Instead you have to continue to pay her while employing someone else to do her job while she is on maternity leave. So instead of her husband being responsible for financing his wife and child, the employer is made responsible, even though he has nothing to do with it.
    Things like this, responsibilities applied from without, make it possible for women to dispense with her husband. Why does she need him when she has the government making the world comfortable for her? Democracy, with the female vote, is a major factor in the feminisation of society. And lets not forget feminine men also voting to weaken the strong.

    1. Democracy, with the female vote, is a major factor in the feminisation of society. And lets not forget feminine men also voting to weaken the strong.

  20. Quintus – Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived together. Neanderthals were actually evolutionary more adapted to living in cold European continent. Still, as a proof that evolution doesn’t guarantee anything, they were suppressed by homo sapiens because it operated on much more higher and more sophisticated organizational level, such as tribes for example. They sent advance parties, scouted for new areas to settle, migrated. So they eventually eliminated Neanderthals, even though they did not evolute to be as resistant to ice age climate of Europe.
    Organization is the most important part of human deveopment

  21. “Women have not become “emancipated” so much as industrialized. They have become drafted into a vast slave army of anonymous drones, willingly or unwillingly, whose function it is to slave away in meaningless jobs, so that they can become better consumers before the altar of the moneyed oligarchs.”
    Another gem.

  22. Another excellent article Quintus. What I also see as a mitigating factor that differentiates us from previous periods is the nano technology of today, not just our means of communication but also medical nano tech that could push us from being a mere biological animal to part carbon part silicone part chip implant, whatever, animal.
    I know this sounds a bit far fetched, but now sperm can be produced from bone marrow, and supposedly the Japanese have developed an artificial womb, and human embryos are attainable.
    What all of the above boils down to is that traditional patriarchial roles that have ensured the continuation of the Human species could be replaced by some bizarre third party high tech reproduction system.
    But on the plus side the Earth is due a doomsday meteor that will put Humanity back to the puddle of shit from which we arose 🙂

  23. I get where you’re coming from, but just as you claim it’s unhealthy to suppress “natural” gender roles people may be inclined towards, I think it’s equally unhealthy and repressive to force them upon people. Ex. if a girl prefers dolls over action figures and toy cars, let her have them. If a teen guy wants to be a football champion or spend a lifetime as a lumberjack, by all means, go ahead. But if he’s naturally more inclined towards acting, or something more artsy(and has a real shot at a career with it) let him shoot for it. Let girls be tomboys and catch bugs if they want to.
    I think the healthiest bet for society is to try to remove pressures from both the “normal” and the “inverted” gender structures, and just let people do what they want. being a mixture isn’t necessarily bad.
    Personal example: I loved race cars and video games while I was little, yet my room was full of pink and dolls simultaneously. I love neuroscience and the arts. I wear comfortable outfits most of the time, but if I feel like dressing up I might wear a corset. Oh, and I’m a “dirty, rotten” feminist cunt.

Comments are closed.