The Roots Of Masculinity In Ancient Rome

Few civilizations have been granted the honor, by Providence, to stand as equal to the best. The Ancient Roman Empire, however, is one such civilization. Sitting at the table among the titans of history, Ancient Rome is regarded as one of the largest and most influential empires the world has ever known. Certainly up until that point, only the Macedonian and Achaemenid empire had controlled large swaths of land, but both quickly sunk into the annals of history.

Stretching from Hadrian’s wall in Britannia (modern day England) to the banks of the Euphrates river, the Romans affectionately described their legacy as imperium sine fine, or “empire without end.” With roughly forty-seven modern day countries within its grasp, almost no civilization during her millennia-long existence went untouched by the tentacles of commerce or by Rome’s colossal war machine. What started out as a monarchy evolved into a republic, and because of military expansion and thus need for centralized power, ushered in imperial Rome. During this imperial period, Rome acquired the majority of what history would remember as the Roman Empire.

While Rome is most often remembered for the debauchery associated with certain emperors and its many technical advancements, what was truly remarkable about Rome was the way Romans were expected to steadfastly attend to virtue. The culture was permeated with the idea that one would achieve excellence and renown amongst fellow citizens through pursuit of certain virtues. These virtues were either were specific to their station in life or were general overarching ideas for a civil society. Nonetheless, most Romans, including women, were judged on their ability to effectively and competently fulfill their role in the Republic.

Roman society, especially Roman public service and military life, was notoriously meritorious. There was no coddling, and certainly no handouts; both of which are prevalent throughout the west today. Any public appointment or respect in the community was earned through attendance to virtue and tangible deed that reflected ones commitment to excellence.

To be respected in ancient Rome, and especially to be considered for membership in the senate or military elite, one was in constant pursuit of attaining excellence. While the Romans had many virtues they aspired to, Virtus, or “manly character” was the most important for those who served in the public sphere. From the freshest legionnaire, to the emperor himself, Virtus was the most highly prized trait a man could have. If a man was able to have Virtus associated with his name, it was likely that he would one day hold high public office.

While the exact definition of Virtus varies among philosophers, and evolves throughout the history of the Roman Empire, Virtus was introduced by Plato and refined by Cicero into four specific virtues. These virtues are as follows: prudence, bravery, justice, and self-restraint. (Note: The reader might recognize these as the “four cardinal virtues” found in theology—this is because they were co-opted by Thomas Aquinas during the 13th century A.D.)

It was apparent to the men of Rome, but especially to men of power, that it was manly virtue that distinguished them from those whom they considered barbarians. It was their Virtus that made them great. There was no doubt; the Romans believed they were victorious because they were better men than their adversaries. They were certain that it was Virtus which would make or break them as men, as would it determine the success of their civilization. The Romans were correct, it seems, considering large scale moral decadence seemed perfectly to correspond with the downfall.

Virtus is the badge of the Roman race and breed. All else is false and doubtful, ephemeral and changeful: only virtus stands firmly fixed, its roots run deep, it can never be shaken by any violence, never moved from its place. With this virtus your ancestors conquered all Italy first, then razed Carthage, overthrew Numantia, brought the most powerful kings and the most warlike peoples under the sway of this empire. -Cicero


Modern Society

One would think with a clear message like this from history, Western Civilization would be able to go forth and achieve even more, for an even longer period than our Mediterranean forefathers. In any reasonable society, the life and times of great virtuous men would be blasted throughout the culture. We don’t belong to a reasonable society, though, in fact one that is sick by most measures.

We seem to not only have what is important completely reversed, but we even venture to find the degradation of values as cause for celebration. We forsake truth for the sake of political correctness, and shun the successful ideas of great men in favor of the ruthless doctrine of a failed false utopia. Telling enough, when I recall my Advanced Placement literature class in high school, I remember being offered a choice between “Black Feminist Theory” or just “Feminist Theory” as potential topics for my essay.

A critical aspect of civilization that has been almost completely washed out of modern society is the aspiration toward a good character. There are very few institutions left that teach the traditional manly character that built all of Western Civilization. It has always been an insane idea that these empty and ambiguous catchphrases like “social justice” and “kindness” that are oft quoted by leftists are expected to cure the ills of society.

The idea of what it means to be good has gone from prudence to running around naked at the gay pride parade, from restraint to indulging in whatever emotion feels right, from bravery to demonizing people who have a different opinion than you, and from justice to engaging in anything to further the SJW cause even if it means ignoring the truth.

A Return of Kings

If we men want to renew our civilization, void of illogical dogma and abject ignorance, why not begin by adopting the very way of life that ushered our civilization into the once-great civilization it has been in the past? The doctrine of emotion that the mainstream Cultural Marxist society perpetuates today is also the doctrine of weakness.

It is rooted in myopic thought and a lack of depth of understanding. Perhaps if men can once again find Virtus, we can find the manly character to be bold in the face of mainstream criticism. In due time, real men will show themselves and act as an antidote to the venom coursing through the veins of western civilization.

Read More: Is Feminism Really Killing Masculinity?

166 thoughts on “The Roots Of Masculinity In Ancient Rome”

  1. Virtus is dead because our education(indoctrination) system vomits leftist garbage down our throats from a very young age. When I was a kid I remember still learning about those terrible, patriarchal, dead, white men and all the great things they did. But as I got closer to graduating high school and on into college it turned into how brave random, black, transsexual, feminist #4325 was fighting for “equality”. History classes in College had me studying “womens” history and I was hard pressed to find classes that covered the greatness of rome or ancient greece. And they wonder why boys can’t sit still in class and more and more men leave college while more women attend every year.

    1. That’s disgraceful; I am truly sickened at the state of ‘education’ or mass indoctrination and the wanton leftist agenda. These ‘evil, tyrannical, despotic, patriarchal white men’ gave us civilisation and illumination and instead we’re being forcefed utter horsesh*t about random transexuals fighting the power and all the other bloviating, self-righteous garbage. No son of mine will be subjected to this and will be endowed with the requisite level of manliness to openly mock and scorn these creatures-they will learn virtue just as their old man did.
      Were I stuck in such a situation I’d have probably committed seppuku and died honourably than being exposed to that filth. This may appear something of a silly question but didn’t your college offer any classes whatsoever in the classics/philosophy or history/archaeology? I was the fortunate beneficiary of doing an undergraduate program chockfull of philosophy like Stoicism, Epicureanism, and works by Thales, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle et al. I even managed to to sate my appetite by reading Thucydides, Xenophon and other such visionaries with Greek translations and the original Ancient Greek text side-by-side. Suffice to say it was immensely fulfilling.
      By the by, when presented with such idiotic viewpoints and their uselessness, I made a point of commenting that but for all the alleged equality and equivalent intellect females have where are their philosophers that actually have value? Where is their Descartes, their Sartre, their Kierkegaard and dare I say it-Schopenhauer? Hilarity ensued at the shocked indignation at this observation and there was a palpable resentment at this inferiority being so artfully expressed; I got a sense of perverse satisfaction when I uttered “Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted” but in a conciliatory gesture I opined that the very few that can remove themselves from or raise themselves above the rabble can be of value.

      1. Yeah those classes exist it is just very hard to get into them and they were completely robotic. I would be excited to study Greece and Rome and the class would end up being so bland I would rather just go back to the damn dorm and look it all up on my own. Usually you get stuck with History of Women from 1789-1865 or some stupid shit. That being said it was fun seeing how hysterically stupid the women during the salem witch trials were. A true glimpse at a woman’s childish, vain and morally compromised self if ever there was one.

        1. I can see your viewpoint; I tended to grit my teeth and try to spice things up with a pithy observation or aphorism. History of women? Egads man-I’d have said the only history they had at that point was knowing their place having been conditioned so by real men/not defied biology

        2. I used to try gritting my teeth and sparking an interesting conversation in the classroom. The problem is that nobody gives a shit. The students are on their Iphones mindlessly browsing some stupid app and the teacher is just praying for those 50 minutes to be over the next time they look up at the clock.

      2. ”Were I stuck in such a situation I’d have probably committed seppuku and died honourably than being exposed to that filth.”
        In our modern culture this practice will ensure you will remain in obscurity. As the case with Thomas Ball who set himself on fire in front of the court.

      3. Schopenhauer should be taught to every boy in school. When I first read him I was blown away. Even if you don’t agree with everything he says and I didn’t but that didn’t mean I wasn’t in awe in of his reasoning. On women, religion and race and evolution, he was well ahead of his time.

    2. Know your enemy! is a saying derived from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.
      I cannot emphasize this one too much.
      And the more I look at it, the more i find that the enemy is not the women. Women are just a tool as they are so damn easily manipulated into a collective frenzy.
      The enemy are the manipulators. And they are a different breed entirely, and hard to get hold of. Once they are exposed, I for one, am willing to kill.
      And the manipulators hates the white man. The one who gave us Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. The one who taught us virtue….

      1. Brilliant statement, Sunhunter. The architect of this hates men, but white men especially. Now, just to find whose agenda would benefit best by this socio-legislative enslavement. A man worried about being arrested for hitting on a girl will less likely notice his country becoming a police state. Just saying.
        But the true enemy hides behind lesser enemies. Anyone else played video games knows this.

    3. Why do you have to get racial? Fuck is your problem? You would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant of the atrocities committed by white people? Learning the truth about your “civilization” is offensive to you?

      1. Thing is, whites are made into as if they were the only ”evil” in history, and as if no other races are that vile. In my response, based on history, I say that we as humans are not good by nature. We’re all savages in a suit.

        1. Not sure about that. Right now it seems that Muslims are “The Great Satan”. And black people constantly bemoan their depictions in the media. Point is, everyone has something to complain about. I could complain about only learning about “white history” at school.But complainers are not gainers.

        2. Upvoted your own comment? Come on now Bob. And no Muslims are not the great Satan, regardless of what Fox or Rick Santorum would like me to believe.

        3. “The Great Satan” is a pejorative coined by the Iranian Government for the United States.

      2. The problem Bob is that the only atrocities we hear about now are what “white men” did. Every other group, every single other one, is pure as driven snow and comprised of worldly, wise human beings who have been so put upon by evil whites.
        I don’t mind teaching the good and bad about European cultures. I do mind it however when all other cultures are given a pass on ‘did bad things’ and all the world’s problems are laid at my feet alone.

        1. I actually have never heard about any “white” atrocities at any educational institution. Not to say somebody at a high school somewhere isn’t saying it but it does not seem to be a theme for me. I have read about them in my own research but most atrocities I have read about concerned say the Nazis, or Communists, or the US bombing of Laos. But these are completely apart from any concerns of race.
          If we are going to talk about the history of slavery well, there is no getting away from the fact that in the West it was primarily perpretrated by white people against black people. But that is merely a historical fact and certainly not a justification for a black person today to resent a white person or vice versa.
          This chap Diomedes clearly has some kind of axe to grind where he will “play the race card” even when it is not relevant to the underlying discussion (about Romans).

        2. You live in England, which despite recent immigration, is a birthplace of Whitey (heh). Hit these united States sometime and go to a university or even high school.
          My kids friends have no idea who scaled Mt. Everest first, but they know the first black person to do so (nothing wrong with that, mind you, but they were never taught about the actual first human being to do it). They know of Thomas Jefferson (well, some of them do), but not what he wrote or his accomplishments, they do however know that he was around during the Revolutionary war and that he owned slaves. Most have no idea who Thomas Edison was (again, seriously) but can nearly quote me line for line poems of “injustice” by Maya Angelou.
          If we are going to talk about the history of slavery well, there is no getting away from the fact that in the West it was primarily perpretrated by white people against black people.
          It might have helped squelch the slave trade mightily if, say, black tribes didn’t overrun other black tribes and sell their captured opponents into slavery to the white’s ships on the shoreline. I doubt many fat rich Dutch merchants and sailors would have braved heading into the jungles to raid black tribes on their own, despite the technological superiority. Then there’s white slavery in the Middle East even today. The Gaels had their entire culture nearly quenched and their lives claimed by the English. The Egyptians were quite fond of slavery as well. Chinese, ditto. There are no clean hands, ethnicity wise, in slavery.
          As I say, it’s fine to teach the faults of any nation, creed or color, but to focus only on one, well, that’s where I have a problem.
          But that is merely a historical fact and certainly not a justification for a black person today to resent a white person or vice versa.
          Absolutely agreed. Living in the U.S. however is not the same as living in the U.K. Y’all have melded quite a bit and get along. Here we have race pimps constantly stoking hatred over here in a never ending pity party and entitlement mentality that keeps blacks angry nearly 24/7 (generally speaking, of course there are plenty of individuals who reject that hatred). We can’t have an election without hearing copious amounts of outright racism from the Left sneered at us in defiance of decency.
          Just tired of all the race bullshit. I’m proud of my cultural heritage, and recognize it’s greatness and its weaknesses and foibles, and I’m again, utterly done with being the butt of everybody else’s grievance with life. They need to get over it, get on with life, and stop looking for outside factors to blame for their own immediate fucked up situations. And that goes equally as well for blacks as it does for hillbillies in poverty snarking about “uppity blacks”.

        3. Stop viewing slavery from the context of the 20th century, view it as appropriate in history. Slavery is always based upon economics. Is it European’s fault that the cheapest slaves in cost and transportation were from West Africa? It is not, because if those slavers were Arabs, the slaves would be from EE, the eastern coast of Africa, or India. If the Slavers were Chinese the Slaves could be from Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos, etc. You are correct in the small part about whites singling blacks out for slavery. My point again: it was the most cost effective; however, it was not an ethnically based decision, because as we know, money rules. Consistently throughout the comments you bring race up. Stop viewing it from an emotional context and view it logically. My ancestors were once slaves of the British, I don’t go around blaming British people who are alive now and the culprits in keeping my ancestors suppressed. Please stop with the emotions.

        4. There is a reason for that of course. White men, especially after winning two world wars, and making it to the moon here in the US were getting so far a head they needed to find numerous ways to make us slow down on our own.
          The concept of “white privilege” is one such way.
          Had white men been allowed to continue in that vein without propping everyone else up, then the world would be much further behind than they claim they are.
          In actuality, white men in the US and UK have been the most enlightened on these topics from slavery to poverty. The reason why so many of the worst nations have gone out of their way to dominate the UN committees is to slow the US down, and get us blamed for everything. Including passing the blame on all of us in the UK and US.
          We had the money, and we had essentially beaten everybody. So, hurry up, and get us to settle down, and then screw ourselves by “helping the less fortunate!”
          Translation, get us to stop our progress, and progress others at our own expense. Granted the UK and US are by no means perfect. But we have been a hell of a lot better then just about every other country. We donate the most cash to others, it is never considered enough. We have given the most tech, we are blamed for taking other’s inventions. We have defended to most nations from harm, and are blamed for putting them their in the first place. Largely because of our greed, and not because we worked really, really hard. And also, we did not actually work, we just benefited from all the minorities who we out numbered ten to one or more, depending on time in history, and took credit for them building everything. Though photos of these endeavors largely show white males doing to the work, we must have refused pictures of all the white women, minority women, and black males who actually did the work.
          Oh yeah, before I forget, Russia is the most enlightened country of all time. The reason those commies did all they did was because the West blah, bliggity blah, hated socialism, blah, bliggity blah, women are better than men at everything, blah, bliggity blah….you get the idea.
          That is how the delusional roll.
          Part of me hopes they get what they want. White men have,historically been 97+% of the war dead, and 93% of the working dead before the WW2/Vietnam era. And 85% of the war dead since. Still, all men make up 93% of the working deaths.
          But, we oppressed everyone, and took credit. No.other.race.was.involved!

        5. Not to mention those evil white men are the ones who also ended slavery in the United States. Something that still goes on in many parts of the world.

        6. GoJ,
          I am an American citizen. I have spent a good part of every year for the past 21 years in “these United States”. I studied in an American university and worked for many years for American companies. I currently live in the UK.
          Actually my view about Americans and history is that they know far too little of it in general (even their own). I find it shocking. American universities seem to be set up to indoctrinate people into believing the government’s version of events.
          Yes many cultures have had a form of slavery. But it is of no comfort to me personally to say “well the Egyptians did it too!” I agree that white people living today should not be held responsible for the actions of people living 150 years ago. But at the same time, given that I have personally been oppressed by white people while my father grew up not being able to use the same water fountain, for Diomedes to complain that he has to learn a little something about it sounds churlish and pathetic.
          I can understand the annoyance factor in some socialist professor detailing past wrongs of your forefathers. But in my view, too little of the actual historical record of slavery in the United States has been revealed. I have the distinct impression that most white people in America are uncomfortable hearing about it (which I understand – no German wants to speak about the Holocaust). However, I do think such things should be taught absent the emotionalism. Deal with historical facts (including the African involvement) rather than engage in a blame game.
          For the record, I don’t give a shit about the first black person to claim Everest, go to the North Pole or wipe his own arse. I always find it slightly patronizing when some teacher comes up to me to tell me about something like that as if I should be excited…

        7. Stop seeing emotions where there are none and stop making false accusations implying my argument is the exact opposite of what it is. I am not blaming anyone for anything.
          Your argument is nonsensical. Ethics is and must be universal (i.e. time and place has no bearing on whether your action is “wrong” or “right”). Otherwise we could justify any crime we want.
          Slavery is not based on economics any more than theft is based on economics (which is essentially the same thing – a property crime). Slavery was based on criminal opportunism. And yes, it is your fault, your crime if you purchase a slave regardless of how cheap or how expensive unless you immediately free that person. Furthermore, I think you will find that “white” people had more than a small part in slavery. I actually find baffling that you would make such a stupid statement.
          And you are completely wrong about this:

          Consistently throughout the comments you bring race up

          I respond to racists like Diomedes on this board because they consistently turn non-racial articles into polemics against black people. If you were paying attention you would know that my original comment was criticizing Diomedes for “bringing race up”!
          I have had to tolerate significant racism whilst living in a hostile society (Britain) as have my family and I have all the time the world to deal with cocksuckers like him. I am not going to tolerate that bullshit even if you are.

        8. This is a silly statement. Obviously, those benefiting directly from slavery are not the same ones who ended it.

        9. bob, just stop it. You come across as effeminate every time you post something related to race.
          I’m usually a lurker here, but this needs to be addressed. Me, nor most other reasonable people here, give two sh1ts about what happened to those precious non-whites you are so enamored of.

        10. Obviously, the people that ended slavery in the U.S. were white. That doesn’t mean that ALL white people in the U.S. did.

        11. Again I will reiterate: stop viewing slavery from the context of the 20th c. I was not arguing the ethincs of slavey. Slavery is most defiently an economic undertaking ,oppression was the by-product. One must ask why did people take slaves and the answer was not criminal oppression it was because it was cheaper that hiring a wage earner.

        12. slavery is based on economics. theft is based on economics. both occur precisely because of economics: cheaper to enslave, cheaper to steal, etc. civilizations that slaved and stole prospered. civilizations that didn’t were conquered or returned to dust.
          until the advent of industrialization, the age of high efficiency, this was always so. it is only in this contemporary era that this changed so radically, and thus so changed slavery to nonexistence. as such, slavery can only be evaluated in it’s context, in pre-industrialization, while the ending thereof can only be evaluated in it’s context, in mechanization. the two are not the same; slavery could not have ended without the drastic productivity increases of industrialization. that some choose to cite ethics or race is only because they confuse the contexts of history.
          the violence to end slavery was the violence of the industrialized/efficient against the alternative inefficient slavery capital systems of the old world. if race is relevant at all, the only part that matters is thus: the whites that mechanized destroyed the economies used by other whites so they could profit more (and they could, because, again, the massive increase in production efficiency of industry allowed for it). profit motive has always been, and will always be. the ethics of each era are defined within the feasibility allowed by their economic contexts, as is the form and extent of violence used.

        13. Mate, I view racism from a consistent ethical framework. A core principle of that framework, as I have already told you, is that consistent logical ethics are universal. This means identical throughout time and space.
          If you are going argue that every action must be judged according when in time it took place you will quickly find yourself in contradiction with no consistent set of ethical principles.
          That said, John Locke was arguing precisely these ethics when slavery was just getting started. Natural Law my friend.
          But we do not need John Locke to determine that the actions of the slavers were unethical. Consider, what do you think the slaves thought of it? I am sure they knew it was wrong.
          Your argument is the same that a robber would use. I stole this man’s horse because it was cheaper than buying it. Therefore, I am not a criminal.

        14. I am not convinced that it is cheaper to enslave than to hire a person’s labour. Do you have economic studies on this?
          On the face of it, I do not think having slaves would be cheaper than hiring free labour. With slaves, you have to provide them with clothing, shelter and food. You have to pay people to coerce their labour. The labour of a coerced person will always be inferior to a motivated paid employee. You will also have to hire people to catch them when inevitably they run away. Finally, slaves will hate you and will not miss an opportunity to kill you and exact a bloody revenge.
          I don’t know about you but to me owning slaves sounds like a fucking nightmare.

        15. I agree that ethic are universal. My point was more that one must view ethics in the context of history. Understanding the culture in terms of society, politics, and ethics within context. For example, while we view slavery as wrong, whereas ancient peoples considered slaves as spoils of victory. Even though we consider what they did as wrong, they would not viewed it as wrong. I was arguing the paradigm rather than the ethics. But as the internet is, it is hard to make the exact point without in person conversation.

        16. I think what you are arguing there is moral relativity rather ethics. Ethics is based on logic, therefore either ancient peoples were either illogical or unethical (if they had discovered ethics). Morals on the other hand can be relative since they are derived from religion, which lacks a logical basis. In fact, I am sure you can find religious texts in various times justifying slavery among many crimes.
          When you say “ancient peoples” I think you should be more specific. The ancient slave owner may have felt justified in owning slaves but we know the slaves (who were far more numerous) knew intrinsically that slavery was wrong. The Romans had to fight against three slave uprisings (the most famous being led by Spartacus which threatened the existence of Rome itself).

        17. when and where you are is all you’re looking at, but you don’t matter, not as an individual bob. not that i disagree with your sentiments at all, for where we are today. but when and where was everyone else during those times?
          hand waiving away all nuances and distractions, the point is this: order formed that allowed for life for both the slave and the enslaved. and this afforded more life and was more efficient than a slave without means or an owner without hands. most owners were not cruel nor were most slaves running away; both benefited from the hierarchy and adapted their ethics precisely because there was no alternative, not in practical existence, nor even in concepts of available at their time.
          this concept applies to the where bob is now and the capitalism of today: the same takes place, with softer versions of exchange afforded, payment in dollars, etc. slavery isn’t gone, the impossible hasn’t happened, but a better form exists: wage slaves, bankers on the main, and speculators on the wall. not best, but better, than ages past. you may not like it, but our times and concepts to achieve our lives deem it ethical enough, and certainly more ethical than more one-sided exchanges of the slavery of old.
          if now existed then, those in the past would have had nightmares too. in detroit, people steal, and most sleep well enough.

        18. balls. missed this until just now. i habitually doubt and test everything, but this was quite solid.
          it seems just as scriptural islamic advocation of violence is taken literally by some of its members, so too was this written jewish advocation of literal harsh slavery. never knew it went that deep, but it unfortunately fits the narrative. more credence to the theory of effected persecution caused due to taking much more than giving as a cultural modus operandi, slavery being only one such aspect.
          count on people’s hubris to reveal, regardless of affiliation.

        19. You cannot adapt ethics. Ethics is based on logic and thus immutable. I don’t think you have addressed the economic argument I have made and of course there was an alternative. The ethics I refer had been discovered at this time. But criminals don’t give a damn about ethics. Their moral code is might makes right.
          You misspecify slavery. Wage slavery is a Marxist concept and thus invalid.

        20. ok, invalidated. but ethics is not what you use it as. blurring the lines between belief and behavior is lax.
          logos is not ethos. logos is constant over time and universally holds consistent by definition, for that is what it is (e.g. a fact). ethos is not constant over time and is a statement of behavioral value relative to other behavioral value. ethos is not universally independent, rather ethos is modestly dependent on people/time/environment. thermodynamics is logos, emergent behavior of what you externally derive as fair is ethos. fairness always benefits the fair, whereas logos doesn’t.
          ethos is further bound. ethos (externally derivable behavioral ‘should’s) is not morals (instructions by other people ‘should’s), and ethos is not pathos (self and self alone, not universe statements and not relative behavior value statements).
          if you alone rank the value of an action, then this is pathos: a feel, an assertion more of self than not. while ethics cannot be voted, it cannot include individual belief and cannot just be instruction by others on what is right.
          as to economics, it also cannot include belief. criminal trade is still trade, and often happens precisely because it is more lucratively profitable than it otherwise would be if not outlawed, ethics be damned. this simply is.

        21. OK I am not talking about ethos I am talking about ethics which is derived from logic not individual values.
          You seem to be confusing government prohibition of voluntary trade and actual criminal behavior. Drug dealing is economical behavior and not intrinsically criminal. Robbing someone of their property is destructive, violent and thus criminal. Coercive behavior, such as forcing someone to work against their will is destructive and not economical because the individual concerned would have made a different action in line with their personal motives and needs. The forced action is an inferior and uneconomical action and thus criminal.
          Economics must be viewed from the perspective of the individual.

        22. i like seeing you around bob, your posts have been good in the past, but that’s bananas. ethos is greek for ethics, latin ethikos, etc. this whole thread of your stuff shows you’re falling apart at the seams. don’t know what’s gotten into you, but let’s just stick to more concrete stuff.
          roman ethics permitted slavery when they were farmers, endorsed slavery when they were conquerors, and banned slavery when they were Christians. which all happened as their economics changed over centuries. slavery ending in rome co-insided with massive technological explosion and industrial efficiency, changing slavery from needed to not (as) needed, permitting ethical rejection of it. but it was too soon, women fucked shit up, no more technology, and without slaves, rome fell for the last time forever. it did not get back up. economics, without high efficiency, affords more success/life with slavery than without, making slavery cheaper.

        23. No dude Slavs where the cheapest slaves(hence the name)
          Blacks where the premium if anything
          And no it was a political thing since it actually hurts the economy.
          Persians made extreme limits on it and made them rich

        24. The Romans were indiscriminate slavers. Slave as it were is not a Latin word. In Latin slaves were called servus. The Roman did not really care about ethinicity. The only thing that made a slave more or less valuable was his education before servitude. Slavery dose not hurt an agrarian economy. The only way rome could expand was on the backs of a large slave population thereby allowing Roman men to train for war. Much the same as the Spartans before them.

        25. Umm it provides an artificial source of cheap labor forcing the job market to remain stagnant. Is it a coincidence that America after it banned slavery went into a industrial revolution?
          But yes you’re right Romans enslaved anyone.

        26. You do know that the North industrialized before 1863, right?
          I do agree that banning slavery forced the South to industrialize, but that is a forced industrialization (reconstruction) and much different than a natural process such as one would find in England during the 1700s or the North before the war. Industrialization does lead to emancipation, naturally. Emancipation does not naturally lead to Industrialization.

        27. Yes after the restrictions were placed on slavery decades before then. It jumped after it was banned. Tech jump from 1776-1863 to 1863 to 1920’s.
          I could use Persia who put restrictions on slavery for example which lead to them having a merchant heritage. (And being rich than the Romans)
          Also to note the Southern reconstruction was a failure.

        28. And here I thought you meant that slavery jumped after restriction were placed on it. I may have misread your previous post. I do agree that technology made huge leaps. Yes the Persians were richer than the Romans per say. That would have been because the controlled the trade routes. Further, persia ad a politicall entity ceased to influence life in the near east after alexander. Essentially when rome reached its age of affluence its money flowed to china through the sassonids and their successors. I find the argument to be a little narrow sighted given the economic political situation of two different cultures with two different economies.

      3. A. I’m white in a country founded by whites.
        B. I think our education system should talk about those guys.
        C. Squeal harder next time. Whites have committed no less atrocities than whatever color/race you are. Deal with it.

        1. A. What country is that? Norway?
          B. What guys?
          C. Nobody is disputing this. The issue is you playing the race card. I think you need to move past race and get over your guilt about past crimes committed by people who have nothing to do with you.

        2. A. Yeah Norway is the only nation founded by whites.
          B. The point of my original comment was that students today are being taught less and less about the great men of the US.(Jefferson, Washington, Franklin etc.) and more about some random social cause or feminist.
          C. I have zero guilt.

        3. A. Stop being evasive. What country?
          B. That has less to do with black people and more to do with the nature of the State – in other words, the men you mention spoke and wrote in direct contradiction of the men that run the US today. Learning about MLK is a side issue in comparison to what is really going on.
          C. You can demonstrate that by elevating your mind beyond race.

        4. A. What?
          B. Never said it had anything to do with black people. You’re projecting mr. notsoenglishbob. I fully blame the state.
          C. Says the guy that has emotional outbursts about race every other comment section.

        5. B and C, same answer. You brought it up. Something clearly bothers you about black people. Pot, Kettle, Black. No pun intended.

    4. We make do with the internet for ourselves and with homeschooling our own sons in Virtus and our sons and daughters in the Trivium.

    5. Luckily for me I learnt about slavery and the shoah and how evil the white man is. I even have a qualifications in cultural diversity.

    6. Eh, I think this attitude is one of many deceptively disguised “non-virtus.”
      Essentially, I’m so good, and totally an Island to myself, my environment is my slave, and not I it’s. Everyone else, but my chosen group whom I know very few (if any) personally are the “Chosen elite.” A cluster fuck mentality if ever there was. No man is an Island, and the environment has influence no matter what you say. The proverbial “Westernized” countries all have significant flaws for sure, but the totally flawed third world also has things it can offer. Life is complicated, and virtue is never dead. Merely changing it’s needed application, but never dies, or stops being true to itself.
      If people choose not to be virtuous, and you bitch before joining them, that is on you. No one else. Not feminists, not Jimminy cricket, nor friggin Santa Clause giving you a lump of coal rather than your most wanted train set for your fifth Christmas. You are your own man, or you have failed to realize that you are.
      Speaking of the chosen few, and this article, it seems to fail at identifying the real Rome before, during, and especially after it’s imperial height. Though it briefly touches base with the downfall of it’s debaucherous later nature.
      Only Marcellus, before Julius Caesar, actually went from nobody Roman Citizen, to Consul. Later, julius Caesar, most likely in admiration of Marcellus’s reforms, both military and administratively in the earlier government; allowed even foreigners to mingle at the top. Essentially an early version of “no taxation without representation.”
      If you are going to tax, anally violate me against my will, and take my sons for war; I better have a say in the matter; amirite?
      Before these two, and largely after, only high born Roman citizens could get to the top offices, and eventually emperor. If they lived that long. Hahahahahahaha.
      Romans liked choosing their leaders from “proven social stock.” Essentially, it is where the idea really fomented in the European mindset all the way through the dark ages, that “Divine Right” had any chance to rule. If you were not a veteran warrior statesmen from a well-to-do family with a history of values statesmen in your lineage, you could jack yourself with a red hot poker, you were not getting to the top. At best, you could marry in and be adopted like a son. Then be the next’s emperor’s wittle princess, and go4. As in “Go for this, and go for that cockmunch!”
      If you were a peasant, Roman or especially other wise, you could bend over and get plugged before dying. In war, or in the Tiber (river of Rome), your choice.
      Rome has inspired this torrid love affair with it’s false image of itself as some sort of virtuous demi-god of how society in general should be practiced.
      Fuck Rome.
      It has it’s valuable historic lessons on governance, logic, and a whole host of other weighty matters it improved during it’s time.
      But in general, Rome was a mob that butt-fucked it’s way through history, and enslaved the shit out of anyone who said the sky was blue, if Rome said it was black.
      Cicero, though I have read many of his seminal works, was a breath of fresh air, and so was Julius Caesar. Most of the other notables were of such low grade, incestuous BS that they are worth the contempt they garner even today, thousands of years alter. And will continue to be so. Proverbial curse words the whole lot of them.
      But if you think that living in Rome at any other time than maybe it’s very beginning, you are crazy and can have that shiite.

    7. Greeks were matriarchal, good luck learning about male white figures, when the capital of ancient and modern greece is named after a black african goddess (nth)=athena

      1. Actually from inception Greeks were patriarchal then descended into matriarchy after the society started declining.
        Roman idealism used a Greek template which is why a lot of Roman regalia and architecture and concepts resemble the Greek’s.
        Rome at its zenith was a patriarchal society just as Greece at its zenith. This is what we can expect from a society striving for perfection in thought and action – patriarchy.
        Rome descended into a matriarchy after it started declining – this is the lesson to behold: all societies at their crux have rational men ruling absolutely and are patriarchal; when they decline and everything degrades they become matriarchal.
        I cannot link the capital Athens to being named after Athena but whether or not that is true does not mean they were matriarchal.
        Zeus was a patriarch at any rate.

        1. I am interested in where this information comes from, particularly on greece, it conflicts with my texts. Please site your source that greece started as a patriarchy and became matriarchal.

        2. No, it was inflation,welfare, big bureaucracy, and Attila the hun who destroyed Rome

    8. You genuinely think there weren’t women in Ancient Greece and Rome? Women ran Sparta, that most manly of places, because governing was considered too girly for warriors. Every time period you read about men doing things, by definition there were also women doing things or we would have all died out. If your education ignored what they were doing, it was a sham designed to indoctrinate you with lies of your own importance.

    9. It’s why Homeschooling is at record levels in this country. To be honest, having been to educational conferences, the Homeschoolers are turning out quite well. Because the ones I have met do not get their info from the DOE indoctrination books. They actually go places, learn how to run a business with their parents, and experience real life. As the online education revolution continues, hopefully, we can displace these Union Entrenched teachers and get down to learning real life skills that matter in the workplace and beyond.

  2. Western civilization is being unraveled by whiny white girls whose entire worldview revolves around her feelings and ‘being nice’. It’s depressing to watch and I’m not even a western guy.
    To be honest a lot of the blame falls of western guys – you care WAY too much what your women think of you. They don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about in the first place, so why pay so much attention?
    I’ve had entire conversations with white girls and at the end I find out their problem was that they felt offended by something, and that’s apparently a big deal. Look at all the college girls who thinks gay marriage/abortion/transgenders are serious political topics, and vote based on that ignorance. It’s like their mind is stuck at six years old.
    You treat women’s opinion like you treat men’s opinions – if it’s bullshit, tell them they’re retarded, or ignore and move on.

    1. You’re preaching to the choir. Those of us here understand the issue. If it was as simple as telling other guys to tell women to shut it, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
      I can’t control what other guys do. None of us here can. So while *WE* may tell women what they said was stupid, there are too many guys out there doing the opposite and prolonging this miserable failed experiment called feminism.
      We know the problem, and we even know the solution for the most part, but executing solution that is not as easy as you make it sound.

      1. “Look at all the college girls who thinks gay marriage/abortion/transgenders are serious political topics, and vote based on that ignorance.”
        “While we understand the issue, a lot of males out there apparently do not, so they keep reinforcing the same stupid behavior in an attempt to get laid.”
        A bit over a year ago, in my beta-alpha transition days, I had this exact problem. I agreed with and listened to this girl bang on about gay marriage and abortion for a good hour. Then, when I asked her about other political topics she was interested in, she said, “not many others, but some of my friends are gay and gay marriage is really…”
        I didn’t even get laid in the end and I wasted a month (because of oneitis) listening to her about bullshit. From now on, if a woman starts talking about gay marriage, transgenderism or her boyfriend, I will tell her that I don’t give a shit about those things and I’ll ignore her if she continues or whinges about it. All that has to happen for men to be converted like this is to realise that: 1) listening like this won’t get them laid, and 2) listening like this ends them in the friendzone, which is largely useless. This is the progression that needs to take place.

        1. I’ve long passed the point where my eyes glaze over when a girl starts saying more than two sentences in succession. At best I’ll just say ‘hm’ a few times; usually I just tell them I don’t give a shit.

        2. The saddest thing about your reaction is that if you consider what women say, your reaction is reasonable.

    2. Nicely put. Stupidity goes across every demographic so if I am presented with it I duly shred it to ribbons; you have channelled Arthur Schopenhauer in pointing out the inherent childishness of women too-bravissimo

    3. “You care WAY too much what your women think of you.”
      To this sir, I say you are fucking right on. Well played.

    4. I think Western civilization is being unraveled by whiny white boys frankly. To blame harmless little girls seems a little pathetic.

      1. In a sense you’re right. Too many “men” give deference to everything some cupcake says and will fight and die to uphold her stupidity. That’s on those men. Women could be disempowered in a month if men stopped giving away their power to them.

        1. Exactly right. If you decide to work with children and animals you deserve the chaotic results.

      1. A lot of men who are here were once blue pillers outside the manosphere.
        The message is spreading, now is the time for being bold and spreading the word. Who cares if the manginas recoil, maybe one or two will hear the words and message, think about them, and come around in time.

    5. The garbage is that men think they need to validate women by listening to their shit and agreeing with them.
      I’ve found that women are the real tools.
      They’re idiots plain and simple: i’ve gotten with many different kinds of women by simple smiling and saying everything in a kind way even when saying:”you’re talking fucking bullshit you retard”
      The thing with them is they’re faux-intellectuals – imbeciles in a not-so-obvious way. They don’t really care about any intellectual issues in any deep way. All they care about is feeling good and everyone being nice to them.
      I could tell a women her she’ll grow up and die alone forever but once I say it nice she’ll agree – its called amused mastery:TRY IT
      We can also ignore the shit out of everything they say but if done in a smiling nice way they’re good with it.
      They don’t really care about women’s rights either. I maintain that all the shit we’re in today with women and feminists is a result of our nitwit ancestors not ignoring women.
      You simply CANNOT take them seriously – smile and ignore them.
      I’m sure the Romans knew it cause they were smarter than us and ruthless in their execution of Virtus

    6. My generation is seriously lacking male (paternal) figures which has given rise to a body of young men that were not taught strong male values such as virtue, honesty and/or self-reliance or how important the development of thick skin is to the growth of a man. It is so disheartening to see my fellow brethren worship at the temple of vagina instead of doing something of value.
      1) Have an iPhone? check
      2) Have a strong opposition to those against transgender/feminist/gay marriage rights? (aka everyone and everything gets equal rights) check
      3) Like your coffee picked by rare Earth monkeys, roasted using bicycle power and served in a cup made of magical eco-shit? check
      4) Voting decidedly leftist while spewing the doctrine of a fence-sitter? check
      This list can go on and on. Right you are Humayun. The leaders of tomorrow’s USA are going to be from the PCNP; the Presidential and Congressional Nancies Party unless something seriously changes.

    7. “It’s like their mind is stuck at six years old.”
      That is the prevailing opinion on the root cause of Borderline Personality Disorder, that some event happened at the age of 6 to prevent further maturation of the mind.
      The stage of mental development, which normally lasts no longer than a year or so, is characterised by a solipsistic view of the world and a totally black and white view of good vs. bad. Things and people are either angelically good, or demonically bad.
      The characteristic presentation of the Borderline Disordered is their inability to sustain positive human relationships, as they see any slip from their view of angelic goodness as necessarily casting the other into the pit of demonic badness.
      Although there is some difference of opinion, it is widely held that the disorder is incurable. It is certainly difficult to even broach the wall of the solipsistic and totalitarian thinking, as its features are what are termed ‘extinct proof’ in the behavioural sciences.
      And we have created an entire generation almost entirely comprised of these people.

  3. It truly is a site to see the West devoured by its own stupidity, where depopulating themselves through various means is celebrated as a “choice” and from bailouts to handouts rule the day.

    1. It really is an insidious process. Let women vote, bring in left wing ponzi schemes. Let women get education… Just because everyone apparently has to have one to be human. Then stick her in a job until she decides to get married and has fewer kids because her man’s paycheck is smaller.
      Then when not enough kids get pumped out, annouce that they need to import hostile cultures to keep the system afloat.
      All the while fomenting division between men and women to distract and confuse the society.
      And it’s not like the Frankfurt School didn’t plan any of this.
      Myeh, whites need a bit of a dark age to get our shit together I guess

  4. Western civilization is on life support and is going to collapse.
    The degeneracy we see in today’s world, hyperinflation, politicians and banks going out of control, the legal and economic system becoming corrupt etc. And people continue to see their living standards deteriorate.
    I hate it when you hear politicians say “This is the new normal” or “embrace the suck.”

  5. The most fascinating institution in ancient Rome was the Paterfamilias, every family worked as a descentralized government with the oldest man as head of the household and somewhat lawmaker, the oldest living male of the family was someone respected and admired, and expected to be a good role model and citizen in Rome. You should mention that the paterfamilias was the institution responsible for the greatness and prosperity in Ancient Rome, it set solid grounds. The modern western world should look up and recover these lost values and wisdom. IMO we need an institutionality such as Rome had to save our modern civilization, from the mess feminisms has created.

    1. What we see today in our corrupted society? grandfathers are left behind to get sick and die in the loneliness of a cold asylum, zero respect for the ancestors, that only shows how fucked up we are when people treat our elders that way.

      1. The left has almost totally removed the paterfamilias from and the traditional family unit. I’d also mention the cursus honorum for generals and statesmen. A set, rigid path to glory and greatness. That is something men could use today.

        1. To be fair, this trend began with the industrial revolution. Many extended broke away and spread apart from each other, and each new generation might need to find work in another town. Material prosperity has also made it possible for individuals and couples to each own their homes, instead of many adults (and a bunch of children) living cramped together in a single household.

    2. We should also pay attention to how the Romans fucked everything up by making the same mistakes we are making now.

  6. Men and masculinity are the bedrock of civilization. Suppress these things and you have what we have now, a morally bankrupt and weak culture that is dangling from the precipice of systemic collapse. If Feminism has taught me anything it is that women cannot be trusted with the keys to the Kingdom

  7. “If we men want to renew our civilization, void of illogical dogma and abject ignorance, why not begin by adopting the very way of life that ushered our civilization into the once-great civilization it has been in the past? The doctrine of emotion that the mainstream Cultural Marxist society perpetuates today is also the doctrine of weakness.”
    Something I think the manosphere is getting wrong (or perhaps just phrases inaccurately) is the general idea that emotions are bad. In this sense, I think the SJWs, feminists, and idiotic leftists are having a victory over us.
    If your brain is the HUD, your heart is the engine.
    Most certainly logic and reason are one of man’s greatest tools against the forces of nature. Reason elevates us from our purely bestial nature. Reason and logic took us into outer-space.
    However, without emotion and raw perception of beauty and evil, reason has no purpose. A man is compelled to protect his family, his community, his lover, himself, through powerful inner drives. His desire to win. His desire to do what is right. His empathy. His love and good humour. Even his sense of spirituality is rooted in his base nature. It can be articulated with language, but it was there already.
    One can be logically correct but emotionally unhealthy. On the other hand one may be emotionally healthy but logically incorrect. Both cases can lead one to their own ruin.
    We shouldn’t divide the realms of “reason” and “emotion” into camps of good and bad.
    We need to cultivate both to be free from our own personal hell.
    You can be the greatest stock-broker of all time, but that in itself will not make you a happy person. On the other hand you might be the most pure hearted man in the world and you will still likely run into danger.
    SJWs have neither fully developed reason nor emotional insight.
    They are simply behaving like children on a crack-binge, having found themselves with so much ephemeral power in the current social scene.
    Whether we decline or not, there is no way this can last on its own merits.

    1. I’m not sure most embrace being emotionless, but rather, not being emotion driven. In other words, acting and reacting primarily due to emotional perceptions and responses to the world. Replacing the cerebrum with the lizard brain.
      Emotions are fine and wonderful, you outline a great case for that. But they cannot be the tool by which we make decisions in life. Emotions are for setting the goals, logic is for achieving them.

    2. I would say that the part of the masculine virtue is a focus on utility. Emotions are important because they are often useful. However, SJWs/Liberals encourage people to wallow in their negative feelings even when doing so is not useful, and they treat hurt feelings as an evil that must be eliminated.
      It’s congruent with masculine virtue for a man to talk about his emotions in an effort to solve the underlying problem or to gain perspective so he can move on. What women often encourage is talking about emotions to seek comfort. This fosters emotional dependence, which is unmanly.

      1. And of course in the current environment the default correct point of view is the woman’s, hence any real attempt to solve problems is almost always negated and all interactions must be anodyne lest someone’s feelings be hurt

      2. Thanks for the great comment.
        I’d like to add that sitting around wallowing in negative emotions is not only unmanly but unhealthy. Facing your demons is one thing, but sitting around mulling over the sam’ol negative shit should be a sign that it is time to change or that something needs to be dealt with.
        But this kind of wallowing and negativity is not something I would recommend for any human being.
        Women gossiping and discussing their feelings in order to relate to each other is what women do. No point trying to stop human nature. But you know what it makes me think about Jon? It make me think about women voting.
        Are they more likely to bring this kind of petty mindedness to the elections? Doesn’t matter who wins, the men will take care of them anyways…
        It is often only women who have had to experience self-reliance to the same extent as men who understand the meaning of hard work.

        1. “Are they more likely to bring this kind of petty mindedness to the elections? Doesn’t matter who wins, the men will take care of them anyways…”
          You answered your own question here.
          The answer is of course – this is why women voting is such a chaotic disaster. The fates of people lives determined by the petty whims of women; their shallow choices. This gives me goosebumps. Did the people who allowed women the vote know what they were actually doing? Were they serious? Did they understand?
          Imagine how much more fortuitous it could have been and a much brighter future that might have been if men maintained control. This is by no means a surety but no one can deny the disastrous influence they’ve made over the past few decades.
          Feminization of men, Dull policies, Dumbing down of education, Overloaded workforce, Weakening of the populace….

        2. Did they know? That is a great question… I bet someone did… I bet there were a few men of that time (properly middle or lower classes) who knew full well what society was getting itself into.
          I think women are intellectually pretty much on par with men. There have been some great female intellectuals in the history of the world (e.g., Mary Shelley, Ayn Rand, Rosalind Franklin) and I know women personally that are very bright.
          What we aren’t taking into account is the fact that women as a whole don’t have quite as much skin in the game… No matter what happens, they don’t have to deal with the consequences because men will bail them out and they know their children are their own. They can just “play politics.”
          I think they are overestimating themselves a little bit though. Men will always bail them out when they are young, but they are racing against the clock. Pretty sure in the future, our world will be defined historically as the world that forgot common sense.

  8. L­­ast thursday I bought a brand new Land Rover Defender since getting a check for $7579 this-last/five weeks and more than 10-k last-munth . with-out any doubt it’s the easiest-job I have ever done . I started this 5 months ago and pretty much straight away was making at least $86…
    per-hour . Check here. h­t­tp:/­/bizoptim.t­k

  9. “The Fall of Rome”, by my old professor, J. Rufus Fears, who draws comparisons b/w the Roman and American involvement in the Middle East:

    Dr. Fears on Taxes, in Rome and in the US:

    Dr. Fears was a witty, wise and urbane man. There’s a lot to be learned from him, in both a historical and political context.
    À bientôt,

    1. The thing is with too much stability and comfort masculinity gets degraded. It is an virtue that like muscle needs something to test its mettle lest it atrophy. For the very nature of masculinity is anti-fragile as are all organisms:

      Just as muscle responds to stress(which is an adaptation in life to chaos which naturally occurs in harsh environments) by growing stronger after rest. So it is with masculinity. We need a constant optimum level of chaos to thrive.

      1. Correct. Safety and economic security gave rise to metrosexuals and emos. As soon danger rears its ugly head, women rediscover the square-jawed, strapping man again.

      2. Men are the movers and shakers of the human story and it is for this reason we have been targeted by Marxist social engineers.
        Women are happily led while men look to the stars and ponder the possibilities of existence.

  10. Excellent article. Leftist nihilism inverts reality and turn virtues that were necessary to survive in a harsh reality of the cold indifference of the natural world into evil sins that must be shamed out of existence.
    Achieving wealth through excellence is now turned into “unfair privilege.” Courage becomes “toxic masculinity”.
    Seducing Women becomes “Sexual Harassment”.
    Finding a virtuous wife to pass your legacy with is now “pussy begging”.
    Utopian childish idealism has turned in to a “human rights”.
    Money goes form an means to an end to an end in of itself.
    Degenerate sexual behavior has now turned into “social progress”.
    Civilized cultural traditions and institutions that make civilization possible now becomes “the oppressive systems”.
    Sound gender roles biased on the biological reality of both gender is now “patriarchal oppression”.
    Physical reality is now “just an illusion” according to potheads.
    Relgion is now an weekend hang out for adults who want to relive high school.
    Rejecting women(who already rejected you your entire life) and ‘society’ so that you can remain peter pan in your moms basement for the rest of your life because you are too afraid to take on the responsibility of raising children is now “male freedumb” according to MGTOW’s.
    Up is down, left is right, the sky is no longer blue and the artificial world replaces the real world. In other words,everything is backwards and all people care about is their empty animal like existence and nothing more.

    1. It’s not about being “Peter Pan” or living in mom’s basement forever, but it is about being realistic with modern, Americanized chix these days. In other words, they don’t make them a top priority to focus on in 2014. You have some good points, but (imo) you’re a bit overboard on some.

  11. One would could almost say that a loss of viture amount our countrymen was a planned event heavily encouraged. They want an end to our freedoms, evil men prevail when good men do nothing. The American is worried about Kim kardashian and who will win the super bowl, while the powers that be write laws everyday whittling away our liberties. And one day you’ll wake up and realize the only thing I’ve can do is drink ones self to death, any thing of substance is scorned. Why though why do they seek to end our freedom of speech, becuase there is only one true enemy to them only one thing that really cuts to the core. It is the same thing that the Roman Empire tried to stomp out its the Christian, when ceaser said I am god the Christian was the only one to not bow down, and they were crucified and burned and given to wild animals history will repeat its self. A world wide ceaser is coming and he will proclaim himself god and even all of you who are close to the mark will bow except men like me God wiling. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the light no man cometh to the Father but by Me. “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” But there is hope for you my friend,That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

  12. I have to wonder if there is a negative correlation between the potency of an empire (wealth, power, prestige) and how long it lasts.
    Since luxury does indeed seem to breed the parasites who bring the Empire down.
    If the potential destruction of Western Civ is to serve any purpose, it is to make clear that rot is what undoes society.

  13. “Roman society, especially Roman public service and military life, was
    notoriously meritorious. There was no coddling, and certainly no
    handouts; both of which are prevalent throughout the west today. Any
    public appointment or respect in the community was earned through
    attendance to virtue and tangible deed that reflected ones commitment to
    Anyone who thinks that it is even remotely possible that this might be true would be well-advised to read Juvenal.

    1. Would be neo-pagans should limit themselves to essays about the utopias of Atlantis. After all, since the society never existed, or existed and no primary sources remain, one easily can’t refute by reading/citing said primary sources.
      Newsflash, if you want to idealize something, idealize something worthy of it, the entire half of the Roman empire that survived until 1453 (when the Turks took Constantinople), and beyond that in the form of the Russian empire (which spent +400 years absorbing Bzyantine civ.) until 1917, and is now back in a big way with the fall of Communism, the revival of Eastern Orthodoxy, and the rise of Putin.
      You already chase and idealize the women, you geniuses should put the following together.
      1. Best women.
      2. Best future (America and the “West” get weaker every day. Russia gets stronger every day).
      Pagan Rome died, because it deserved it to die, you can’t bring it back, and it is foolish to even try it or desire to so try. Join yourselves to the living tradition of Rome that survived through “Bzyantium” to Russia today. Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, live like a man, be a Putin, not an Obama.

  14. What’s happening to the US is the same to what made the Roman Empire fall. Everyone got comfortable, lazy, and expected nothing bad to happen to them where they failed to keep their guard up at all times.

    1. History repeats inself. The godless liberals are ignoring all of the signs of collapse. May we all find peace while the world around us falls into chaos and disrepair.

  15. If you want to immerse yourself in historically accurate and very detailed cut and thrust descriptions of Rome then I recommend Colleen McCullough’s epic series of books on the late Roman republic, beginning with “The First Man in Rome” which is about Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla. The fidelity with which she brings Rome to life is quite extraordinary, almost as if she’d lived there. There’s an awful lot of Virtus and climbing the Cursus Honorium going on. Yes, these books were written by a woman and some of the real Roman women described are as ruthless in their own way as the men but, I swear, these books sweat testosterone into their library shelf.

  16. What exactly do you mean by the “need for centralized power”? Why did Rome need centralized power? In my view, centralized power is what sets a nation on the path to oppression and decay.
    You talk about “our civilization” and “our once-great civilization”. To which civilization do you refer?
    When we speak of Rome we should also consider their un-virtuous activities (such as slavery) and the horrific atrocities they committed. Not everything they did was great.
    Also, when you were offered the choice between feminism and feminism for your essay, was that really a problem? It sounds like a fantastic opportunity to criticize feminism.

    1. Everybody is aware of everything bad that Rome did. I’m pretty sure it’s common knowledge. In fact, in many schools and universities, you’ll ONLY learn what Rome, Greece and others did wrong. Not one in 100 college students can talk to you about Virtus, or can tell you who Ovid is, 0 out 100 can actually passably decipher Latin any longer, but 100 out of 100 can tell you that the Romans owned slaves and were degenerates who fell out with barbarians and got their butts kicked.
      Agreed on centralized power. Nothing good comes from it in the long run. There might be slight short term gains to be had, but only if power is decentralized immediately after the realization of those gains (think of many militias coming under one commander for the duration of a war, then disbanding from the centralized command structure after the war is over ).
      Also, when you were offered the choice between feminism and feminism for
      your essay, was that really a problem? It sounds like a fantastic
      opportunity to criticize feminism.

      I believe he mentioned “Theory of” not “Critique of”. Universities are miniature Soviet republics these days, it would be interesting to see if a critique could make it through without him being brought up before the dean and forced to attend some kind of namby pamby sensitivity class.

      1. When I learned about Rome we learned about their technologies, their wars, their conquests, their system of government, system of law etc. Slavery was mentioned but it was by the by. Perhaps the focus has now changed. It is only recently through my own research that I have discovered just how truly barbaric they were. Julius Caesar for example was awful, virtually pyschopathic. I am constantly learning about new atrocities that they committed that make my jaw drop.
        I am not sure how an academic could ask you to write an essay on the Theory Of Anything and be upset if you critiqued it. Surely they are interested in your critical thought process rather than how well you can agree with a particular theory?

        1. I am not sure how an academic could ask you to write an essay on the Theory Of Anything and be upset if you critiqued it. Surely they are interested in your critical thought process rather than how well you can agree with a particular theory?
          That made me LOL in real life, heh, seriously. Maybe at Oxford, but at Hooterville Community College or HooterState University, USA, you toe the line with the orthodoxy or you get serverly punished.
          Hell dude, they fired the band director here at OSU because the band, a group of legal adults, had a “culture” in which men and women flirted with each other openly when not on the field and not in practice, on their own time, in which nobody complained except one soccer mom who was not even in the band. Serious as shit.
          As to Rome, I don’t disagree. I’m just tired of being the Only Bad Guy In History according to the world now. Fuck that shit. Sure, whites did bad things. So did everybody else, sometimes even, this is hard to imagine, other ethnicities did even worse things. If we can’t get fair history education then we’re not being educated, we’re being indoctrinated.
          The feminine imperative is shocking to watch grow.
          As a college student in the 1990’s I got called out a *lot* for not falling in line with the prevailing ooey gooey “we love socialism” meme. Never directly got in trouble but it came close at times.

        2. What are you studying there? No, I won’t bash you if it’s not Master’s in Computer Engineering with a minor in Physics….advanced level

        3. I thought the bad guys were the British. Haven’t you seen Braveheart and its sequel, The Patriot? And why is it all the the Commanders fighting for the Empire in Star Wars have English accents? Fucking racist Americans! LOL!
          Honestly mate, I have not been exposed to this “White Guy = Evil” theme and while I believe you when you say that it permeates certain schools in America I have never held to that view myself. Even during my darkest days of racism there were always white people who had my back.
          I guess school has changed a lot since I was there in the Nineties. But for me, the truth is what counts.

  17. I walked Hadrian’s Wall end-to-end last winter, on my own, through 84 miles of flooded wetlands, crags and shitty weather. By day three ‘Wow’ turned into ‘why did they build this?’.
    The exciting theory of keeping marauding Picts at bay seems to be getting replaced with controlling trade and taxation through the border, or possibly just built it for prides sake, after all, how many know Trajan or Pius?.
    By day four I just assumed Hadrian liked the idea of his soldiers sitting around in the piss rain and having stand-off’s with the aggressive sheep. At least they had spears, shame they didn’t have Gore-tex.

  18. The decline of Rome coincided with the spread of Judeo-Christianity. What does Christianity teaches? If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. My father taught me, when your woman cries, slap her hard on the face. She’ll thank you. My little family empire is holding up and growing strong.
    But the Roman empire actually proved quite resilient as after the fall of the Western part, the Eastern Roman Empire continued for another thousands of years. The decline of the Eastern Empire started when the Greek element became predominant and the emperors were more occupied with building of monasteries rather than imposing law and order.
    The decline of the American empire started when a certain element took over the money creation. Now the Judeo-Christian ideology has morphed into the women’s movement and the extreme liberalisation of society.
    The decline is inevitable. Until it all falls apart to pieces, society will not change its model.

    1. Wow. I don’t know whether to laugh at that future hairdresser or be sad for the future of my country. Maybe both.

      1. So essentially what I gather from this kid:
        1) Becoming a leader/mentor
        2) Forging his own path
        3) The ability to develop a sound mind and body (wisdom, virtue, gratitude, strength, honesty, integrity) for the benefit of himself and society
        4) Transcending his mortal desires for a higher purpose
        5) Rising to the occasion and doing what must be done
        6) Etc.
        All of these things receive too much credit? Is this kid joking? As if he even knows what any of those things are?

      1. Doctore: What is beneath your feet?
        Crixus: Sacred ground, Doctore. Watered with the tears of blood.

  19. Solid article, and I like the historical references.
    As you mentioned, it was Rome’s refusal of Virtus that eventually lead to it’s downfall. The West has refused Virtus for many years now, roughly starting in the 1960s. How long do we have, if nothing changes, until we are no more than a page in history?

    1. The pace of degradation of the West is only accelerating. Its horrific to watch.
      Remember, this is by design. The Frankfurt School, for one.

  20. Great article Atlas. My only only ambition, even dream is to see the renewal and rise of the west. We are still the economic, scientific and technological colossal in the world today. Culturally, morally, philosophically is where we are found lacking. A great time will come when Europe will join together and this phase of history will be the horror stories our grandchildren will tell their grandchildren.

  21. Rome fell because women and unrestrained female hypergamy. Oh the Roman bachelor tax. . Sounds familiar? . It’s happening now and once again no one has the balls to slap these bitches and put them back in the kitchen. Roman men refused to marry like American men. Women are too much hassle, only good for sex. . Hypergamous sluts who shit on 80% of men. .

  22. Feminism Responsible For The Fall Of Rome
    ~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.
    ~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax”, to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.

  23. Rome shall never fall, her virtues stand as strong as her first day. Socialism colapses in every period of history because of its irrationality: Venezuela, Cuba, former USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam and sadly now Argentina too.

      1. From 14.000 kilometers (around 10.000 miles) I can see a slow but notorious process of decadency, due to cultural marxism and the abandon of roman virtues.

  24. This article did not flow well, full of incongruent points. I also found The authors apparent confusion as to the ages of Rome. Virtue in regard to Roman men can really only be applied to Romans from Rome’s Golden age, before 146 BC. Further, This articles ignores the structure of Roman society where only certain men could join the Senate or rise to glory in the army. Rome was always a Patricians game. Virtue codified vice in that Roman men, while cultivating virtue could in fact use said virtue to their own advantage. Roman history is littered with such examples. on the other hand, I think that the author makes a great point, but implore him to know the intricacies of his subject thoroughly.

  25. This is fantastic. A spot on analysis of the basis for thriving civilization. Thanks for posting it!

  26. The Romans tried to copy Greek virtue, instead ended up looking barbaric and uncivilised. If you want to study masculinity and moral virtue, I would say, stick to the original, ancient Hellenism.

  27. It is like you’ve never heard the phrase “bread and circuses”. Of course Ancient Rome involved handouts: the state controlled large grain supplies that were given away. Even beyond that, the lives of Roman men were supported by slavery and the uncompensated, unacknowledged labor of women. So basically they were living in a giant welfare state, and yet somehow still managed to embody your idea of “virtue”.

  28. There’s actually a surprising number of typos in all of the Return of Kings articles I’ve read. You guys aware of the virtue of peer proof reading? Don’t mean to be rude, just looking out for your internet-wide reputation (not that great to begin with, as I’m sure you’re aware)

  29. Countries should have gladiator battles again, and it should be an international event as well.

    1. We would bleed and die while the Top 1% would profit from it while simultaneously blotting out our names.

        1. Now I could get behind that! But they could not be dressed sexy. They would have to duke it out for my pleasure wearing their tighty whitys so I could hurl embarrassing slanders and insults about their manhood while they fought for their lives armed only with a butter-knife and a spork! Spasiba Korosho!!!

        2. LOL . . BANKERS – Soon after the stock market crash of 1929 there were reports of known local New York bankers being mugged and attacked on the streets of lower Manhattan. A woman’s account was made as she walked down the sidewalk with her young son who later wrote of growing up in the depression. The woman and her son saw a familiar banker lying ahead on the sidewalk begging for help. He had been beaten and robbed. Persons ahead on the sidewalk ignored the banker and a few pedestrians actually stepped on him as they traversed. As the mother and son passed, she walked the boy directly over the man. Her husband had lost thousands in the crash. There were actually numerous reports of brokers and bankers being found lying about for days, some dead and beginning to decay.
          I guess the adage ‘he who lives by the sword dies by the sword’ could apply to the useless eater money changers as ‘he who lives by the casino racket will pass with the same pomp’. But in our great land where the buffalo hump, they could have at least picked him up and thrown him into the nearest trash can. I doubt we will ever see any real world class robber barron royalty on the same sidewalk though. Many billionaires hang their hats offshore now in the Caymans and Costa Rica.

  30. Sharpen your skills and your character, and don’t squander it on the ungrateful. It is not honored today, but do it anyway for yourself. One day it will be valued again.

  31. There were great cultures apart from Rome long before and
    long after. As humans we have done humanity in every shape and form. Each
    culture has highlighted different parts of the human condition. I disagree with
    this article because it seems to be lauding Roman culture above all else as if
    they invented or even perfected the human condition. I am sure that given a
    moment to think I could come up with my own ideal for man and men. Seek
    knowledge, seek power, protect the weak, respect the ancestors. See I came up
    with four, it’s not as hard as you think. I challenge you to try it.
    If we want to transcend our own limitations as a
    species or even as a gender we should be looking at how other species and other
    genders operate and start generating new ideas or combinations of old ideas. I
    don’t think that if a white person looks long and hard at white culture s/he is
    going to come up with anything new, same with every other race. I don’t think that
    as men if we keep looking at how men do things we are going to get any further
    than where we are now and I don’t think that as humans we are going to get any
    further if we just keep reproducing the same old yarn. We should be working towards The Singularity
    or at least Social Singularity. The alternative is that like individual life
    collective life will end.

  32. Virtus comes from the top, not the bottom.
    The Roman Empire, Republic before it, and Monarchy, were run first and foremost by the sons themselves of Rome, and their descendents (Romulus & Remus), which believed themselves descended from Gods.
    Thus, from an elite core of a tribe of Romans, the rest of society was built.
    In Europe and the West, we have destroyed this ARISTOCRATIC ELITE and replaced it with a TECHNOCRATIC ELITE.
    This technocratic elite holds only skewed values as principles.
    There is no virtus here.
    Thus…No virtus helps in their societies. To succeed, you must be like them: Corrupt, attracted to money and consumerism, etc.
    Only revolution by the blood and the forging of a new aristocratic elite, which is by the way the fascist ideal, can provide the renewal of a nation.

Comments are closed.