"Wherefore We must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that We may point out...as they really are, men who are badly disguised." Pope St. Pius X, September 8, 1907, Pascendi Dominici Gregis


Thursday, May 24, 2012

Feminism is Sexism and A Discussion


Originally penned 10/12/2008
 Feminism is not only sexist, but it is twice sexist. It has as its goal the equality of men and women, and since such a goal will not be successfully achieved by forcing all men to be women or all women to be men, its end will ultimately be some ignoble middle. It is not satisfied with mere equality in rights, but has as its end equality in fact. Indeed, as my Marxist professor at UT indicated, the ultimate goal of feminism is the total abolition of all of the differences between men and women, even the physical ones - or, if not that, then a situation where gender has become so confused it ceases to have any real meaning. Thus, feminism, with its end being the destruction of both sexes, is sexist against both men and women.

The feminist may argue in reply that gender is an artificiality, but this is only true in the sense that everything, even and perhaps especially feminism itself, is artificial. Gender is “artificial” in the sense that it is “imposed,” biologically and culturally, from the outside. Ironically, something that occurs in nature is usually called “natural” not artificial. But even conceding this, it is equally true – in an ultimate sense - that everything is imposed from the outside. The physical structure of our bodies, the chemicals we produce, our organs, the structure of our brains, etc., which science has determined do indeed differ between men and women, are determined by our parents, and then ultimately by evolution. We cannot construct or reconstruct ourselves in a total vacuum and thus are determined by what came before. Feminism is no different in terms of its artificiality in this sense; feminism can never fully escape the context from which it originated; it requires its own “culture,” and mechanisms of continuity and thus is itself an imposition. “Imposition” or “artificiality,” as the feminists have it, then, are an inherent consequence of the unconquerable continuity in existence.

The fact that culture evolved in such a way that emphasized, instead of diminished, the differences between the sexes reflects merely the conscious realization on the part of humans of a fact that evolution had long ago determined, these differences enhance and do not diminish the state of the human race. For economists, it is intuitive to point to the economic benefits of the division of labor. A society in which everyone serves the same purpose, regardless of their aptitudes, is a less productive society. Evolution took a system that already existed for other reasons, sexuality, and honed the two sexes to serve an even greater role in maintaining humanity’s survivability. It is instructive to note that the purpose of sexual reproduction itself, as opposed to other forms of reproduction, is an increase in variation; so it is not surprising that the sexes have evolved to be different in other regards besides their particular role in reproduction.

While I recognize the right of all individuals to choose any particular lifestyle they prefer, I also recognize the reality that a culture that by and large chooses to live a nihilistic lifestyle will neither defend this right nor reproduce in order to ensure that there is a body of people dedicated to preserving this right in the future.

Additionally, I believe it is a context of coercion, viz., the modern state, with its attempt to convince us that it can provide total security and a total safety net, that has exacerbated the existence of feminism. The state has attempted to expropriate the roles of the sexes to itself, leaving men and women merely the androgynous function of working primarily to pay taxes. Such a cultural context has given rise to feminism and its fellow travelers, abortion, free sex and birth control. No longer needing children to provide for them in old age thanks to the welfare state, Westerners have little incentive to procreate.

Europe and America are both beginning to see fewer entrants into the labor market and greater amounts of people dependent on government-provided retirement income. Due to the funding scheme of the welfare system – taxes now pay for welfare now – socialist countries will increasingly have to rely on immigration from countries that do not have a primarily feminist orientation in order to sustain their welfare programs. Thus, the context in which feminism is enabled is both born out of coercion and unsustainable. It is for this reason that I stand in opposition to many conservatives on the immigration issue: free immigration is a mechanism that will ultimately defeat feminism, win the culture war, and is morally right. I do not think, in contrast to conservatives, that immigrants ought to fully embrace assimilation to the values of their newly adopted homes, as this often entails superficial “equality” of the sexes, abortion, and free sex. I see the culture war, then, as intertwined inextricably with the state. Thus, I do not fear the immigration of Mexicans or Muslims, as they come from cultures, albeit far from perfect - no culture will ever be perfect - that have not yet been rotted out by the state.

When states like Sweden (
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3582 ) are overrun by foreign immigration and finally collapse in bankruptcy and are therefore no longer able to provide total security and a complete welfare state, men will regain their leadership and protective functions, while women will increase their nurturing role and will decrease their male-like behavior of late.

We see that in Sweden, a vastly socialist and largely rural country, the occurrence of rape is three times higher than that of New York City. It is no surprise that in a society that emphasizes to men only women’s nature as a sex object – which in too many cases may be all that a woman can be to a man, women being no longer raised to provide a nurturing home – that rape rates would increase. Because marriage is “exploitative” and “masculinity” is bad, there are no men willing or able to protect these women.

The Merits of Western Civilization

Cultures evolve, rise and fall, and their continued existence is ultimately determined by the constraints of reality that surround them. Some cultures are indeed more compatible with human flourishing. While I do not condone coercion, there is a reason the sun never set on the British Empire. Look at the progeny of the British Empire, in particular the places where British culture was adopted most fully; Hong Kong, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, are among the freest and most prosperous nations on earth. Again, I am an opponent to empire; if cultures are truly superior they will be accepted voluntarily. The belonging of a particular person to a particular culture has historically been correlated with race because of the lack of geographic mobility. An unfortunate consequence of this is that my opinion expressed here, that some cultures are indeed greater than others for this reason, is often times confused with racism. However, I insist that any group of people regardless of race who adopt the foundational principles of the old British system, federalism, natural rights, limited government, property rights, will eventually become equal if not greater in terms of their own prosperity. And because people are so short sighted in contemporary culture let me state furthermore that it is not right to assume that I mean peoples should adopt the British variants of this institutional setup. Switzerland, a continental culture, has been equal if not greater in its success. The aforementioned countries are all Protestant, so let me say that one might also adopt Italian institutions as they arose in the Renaissance of the 12th century which first gave rise to capitalism. And, to the disgruntlement of some conservatives, let me say that Islam too gave rise to a successful embryonic capitalist period during the 9th-12th centuries (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism ).

In short, then, it is not race, nor even specifically culture, but what type of institutions to which a culture ultimately gives rise that determine the merits of a culture. And let me state one further and final point that it is not so important that culture give rise to a contemporarily consumption-oriented economy like that of America. What is most important is that a culture gives rise to institutions that favor peace and trade over coercive interaction. A country that saves more and consumes less, or that produces less to begin with because of aesthetic considerations is just as good if not better than the American model; a perfect example of this is the Amish. What is key, however, and what the British have gotten right, by and large, is the recognition that property rights are an inherent aspect of the structure of reality and should be recognized as such and institutionally defended. In this respect, and in no others, is the British culture and Western culture in general superior to all cultures that have demonstrated relatively less recognition of this reality. 

A Conversation


The author wrote
at 5:15pm on October 13th, 2008
Oh, and then there’s my favorite example of the schizophrenia feminism causes in women who are not fully or consciously feminist in their mindset:

“I pay my own bills.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuMmfDWMLgY

“Can you pay my bills?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgiiRuEWoYY

Ironically, it is Destiny's Child that doesn't know what a man's about.



A replier wrote
at 9:05pm on October 13th, 2008
So you knew I'd be responding, right? :)

First, this is a well thought out article but I think what you're really disagreeing with is the modern feminism that demands state-mandated equal wages for men and women regardless of ability, and that demands women be treated just like men "everywhere". What it really should be about is that all INDIVIDUALS should be treated the same before the law everywhere; everything private you can walk away from if you don't like. The the (failed) Equal Rights Amendment proposes that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." And in contrast to "modern" feminists, the feminists of the 1970s were advocating for decent medical care for women, child care, and reproductive rights. While I as a free market economist obviously don't think that the first two are rights, these demands are far different from the glass ceiling arguments and reverse sexism against men in the workplace (e.g. firing a man who a woman even accuses of sexually harassing her).



A replier wrote
at 9:10pm on October 13th, 2008
But to your points:

1. "The state has attempted to expropriate the roles of the sexes to itself, leaving men and women merely the androgynous function of working primarily to pay taxes. Such a cultural context has given rise to feminism and its fellow travelers, abortion, free sex and birth control. No longer needing children to provide for them in old age thanks to the welfare state, Westerners have little incentive to procreate."

Well, first, there are several reasons why reproductive rates have gone down in Western cultures. In non-Western cultures there are high levels of births even though abortion, free sex, and birth control are common (specifically in developing countries, there are often quite different perspectives of sex and the "female" role which lead to quite different sexual behaviors than we might think of as the norm, but which occur along high rates of reproduction). The point is, feminism and birth control/abortion are not correlated 1:1. Abortion and birth control go back for millienia; in fact, it is BECAUSE the state has made gender its domain that a woman's "right" to abortion or birth control has now come under question. Men didn't particularly like it or agree with it all the time, but it was a woman's domain, not the man's--after all, it was one less mouth to feed. I'm not sure if abortion is better to infanticide but I think it is preferable; in the latter case the woman could just give it up but infanticide was just as common as abortion. At least we've mostly eliminated that as a cultural practice in the West (aside from the disgusting practice of partial birth abortion).



A replier wrote
at 9:15pm on October 13th, 2008
2. "When states like Sweden (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3582 ) are overrun by foreign immigration and finally collapse in bankruptcy and are therefore no longer able to provide total security and a complete welfare state, men will regain their leadership and protective functions, while women will increase their nurturing role and will decrease their male-like behavior of late.

We see that in Sweden, a vastly socialist and largely rural country, the occurrence of rape is three times higher than that of New York City. It is no surprise that in a society that emphasizes to men only women’s nature as a sex object – which in too many cases may be all that a woman can be to a man, women being no longer raised to provide a nurturing home – that rape rates would increase. Because marriage is “exploitative” and “masculinity” is bad, there are no men willing or able to protect these women."

Unfortunately, I find this somewhat naively stated. Even in cultures where men are the "leaders" and "protect" women, there is a high incidence of rape and abuse. It just goes unreported because the abuser is in the home. With a father in family law, I can honestly tell you that men as cultural/familial "leaders" is not outright preferable; a leader, period, is preferable but the gender is irrelevant until children are introduced into the equation. What the situation in Sweden reflects, rather, is a higher reporting incidence AND a cultural deficit. Women are not valued or respected just the same as men are not valued or respected; equal before the state in their lack of significance. What surprise is it then that they treat each other like animals? I've heard from friends who've studied abroad that in some of the socialist Scandinavian countries, women pull the one-night stands just as much as the men are expected to do here. That I see an increasing incidence of that here in the U.S. is hardly encouraging.



A replier wrote
at 9:17pm on October 13th, 2008
Just as you were pointing out how it is not the geographic location and associated "race" that gives a culture merit, I think it is not the gender question but the actions of individuals that give the culture merit. Feminism is hardly the downfall of the "good" version of the West. Statism is, and the assumption that the state is the great benefactor which can cure all ills without creating any others. Feminism started out with good principles (from about the 1840s through the 1930s) but with the rise of the state, it too began to "get greedy". So I'm sticking to individualism.



The author wrote

at 10:30pm on October 13th, 2008
No, I didn't know, but I am most definitely glad to see it. I wish more people had the wherewithal to challenge my notes if they disagree, because that is one of the primary mechanisms by which I learn. I concede everything you said in your first paragraph as accurate, with the exception of your attribution of my intention in writing this article ("what you're really disagreeing with"). Indeed, I do disagree with what you outlined, but I very much intended to go farther, delving into the very nebulous concept of culture and trying to discern the interactions between the state and culture. A particular cultural context is, it seems, necessary to maintain freedom, so culture may not entirely be ignored by those who wish to see the creation and preservation of a free society. I believe that ultimately it is a cop out for libertarians to see culture as merely just another choice, ultimately irrelevant to the machinery of freedom itself and a mere market input like any other subjective preference. Culture effects people’s decisions, and it is a determinant in whether a particular individual will choose peaceful or coercive relations with their fellow man. I am very much incapable of fully outlining what cultural prerequisites are necessary for the establishment of a free society, except as regarding what has been demonstrated by history. However, this was a preliminary grasp into an arena that we cannot afford to ignore.



The author wrote

at 10:30pm on October 13th, 2008
I agree with you that feminism and abortion are not perfectly correlated; I concede that abortion and birth control both have lengthy histories; I concede also that the particular roles for the sexes I can be seen as advocating are not universally found in all cultures. It is a misunderstanding – and I am not necessarily attributing this view to you – to say that I think feminism directly caused or originated an increase in abortion, birth control, or even free sex. Again, culture is an extremely fluid concept. However, I think it would be also totally misleading to try to separate in an excessively analytical way these phenomena from the modern cultural context, of which feminism is very much a part. Choices are never made entirely separate from a cultural context. It is because you and I live in a culture that still values to some extent rationalism and freedom that we are even capable of realizing that it is not right for you or I to dictate lifestyle choices to other or that in some sense lifestyle choices do not finally determine under what type of institutions one must live. However, at the same time, it is because we have be raised by a culture which, at the very least, does not immediate kill, banish or suppress anyone who shows an inkling towards such rational individualism that we are able to have this conversation today. So it seems that the decisions people make, and perhaps more importantly, the institutions we live under, are also not entirely separable from the contemporary cultural context. In the end, the question I intended to answer was in what way does feminism influence and interact with other cultural phenomena like free sex, abortion, rape, the state, etc.?



The author wrote

at 10:31pm on October 13th, 2008
I have also approached this topic with the realization that it was Western civilization, and originally Catholicism, that historically gave rise to the most complete concept and best realizations of a free society. If I am wrong on this point, please inform me immediately! However, I think Hans Herman Hoppe has said as much (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/hoppe/5.mp3 ). It is true, at least to a sizable extent, that the roles for men and women for which I have shown support developed in this same context. Thus, for the reasons I outlined in my essay, I do not think it unreasonable to question whether the rise of feminism is ultimately compatible with the existence of free institutions.



The author wrote

at 10:31pm on October 13th, 2008
I have not said that women should never have leadership roles, but I do argue that at the margin more women have chosen “modern” lifestyles because of the actions of the state. I also argue that it is not necessarily clear that this is sustainable, a good thing, or that feminism would be as prominent as it is today under a stateless order.

There of course will be variances in particular instances: not all fathers will make good leaders, not all women are great at nurturing, but I think it is folly to throw out entirely biology from our considerations. It remains another determinant from which we cannot ultimately escape, and even if we could it is not clear that we should. This hardly bares repeating, but women and men’s body structures are different, their chemical makeup is different, and the structure of their brains are different. You did not address my biological arguments, and I think you will find it very difficult to argue that these differences do not exist for a reason.



The author wrote

at 10:31pm on October 13th, 2008
Leader is perhaps not the right term, as women show leadership – and this is the key - in different types of activities from men. So I would emphasize more the protective role. This is my own semantic error and undermines my argument.

I would say also that a culture that values traditional sex roles does not cause all men to be good protectors, but it does provide a certain amount of incentive for this. Incentive that is again very much missing today.

I agree with you that the ultimate truth lies in individualism; an individual is ultimately unconquerable in terms of the personal decisions. However, individuals do not live in a cultural vacuum. Again, some individuals do allow peer pressure, regardless of its merits, to exercise influence over their decisions.

Rape, abortion and birth control will still exist even without feminism.



The author wrote

at 10:32pm on October 13th, 2008
I have purposefully not addressed all your points, e.g., “feminism started out with good principles (from about the 1840s through the 1930s,” “Even in cultures where men are the "leaders" and "protect" women, there is a high incidence of rape and abuse. It just goes unreported because the abuser is in the home,” etc., because this goes beyond what I was prepared to discuss at this time; this shortcoming is my own; hopefully I will address these points in future articles, but let me say also that my failure to address them and other points should not be seen as an ultimate concession.

It is also true, insofar as the surrounding cultural context does not determine the institutions of a free society, that part of the purpose of this essay was merely to express my own preference for traditional sex roles and to provide encouragement to those who share my disposition.



A replier wrote
at 12:04am yesterday
I'd prefer to respond tonight, so my reply may be a little more blocky than yours (certainly, no reverse pun intended, as I'm sure Walter Block would take issue with much of what I say.)

"A particular cultural context is, it seems, necessary to maintain freedom, so culture may not entirely be ignored by those who wish to see the creation and preservation of a free society. I believe that ultimately it is a cop out for libertarians to see culture as merely just another choice, ultimately irrelevant to the machinery of freedom itself and a mere market input like any other subjective preference. Culture effects people’s decisions, and it is a determinant in whether a particular individual will choose peaceful or coercive relations with their fellow man."

Absolutely agreed with and I don't think I challenged that in my posts above. A certain culture is necessary but I also think that a culture that values individual freedom has to recognize that whatever Catholic or liberal values may be important to the society as a whole may not directly correspond with individuals choices for themselves EVEN while they value them for the society. For example, I think a stable whole family is better for raising children but were I in a situation where I was suddenly responsible for children, I would not "settle down" just to give them a family life. There are reasons beyond that which are irrelevant to this article, but I think the point is clear--that a individual can have two sets of values; one which they wish to see across society but another which is better suited for their own life. This does, of course, presuppose that one does not VIOLATE the other, e.g. me running away with children from a stable family.



A replier wrote
at 12:13am yesterday
"In the end, the question I intended to answer was in what way does feminism influence and interact with other cultural phenomena like free sex, abortion, rape, the state, etc.?...It is true, at least to a sizable extent, that the roles for men and women for which I have shown support developed in [the context of the liberal and Catholic Western] context. Thus, for the reasons I outlined in my essay, I do not think it unreasonable to question whether the rise of feminism is ultimately compatible with the existence of free institutions."

If you are referring to the role of the male as the protector and the female as the nurturer, I think this goes far BEYOND the Catholic and liberal context. This dates back to--as you say--our biological development. Block said back at the Mises University that by evolution, men became the hunters/protectors and women became the nurturers. That itself must also be evaluated in the context of evolving culture because while those roles were accepted through all societies (no society has ever been matriarchal even if it has been matrilineal) their application has been about as different as can be across the world. While in the West in Protestant countries men were more likely to treat their wives as partners, many Catholic men were apt to treat their wives as servants. These religious variation were also dependent on the "national" culture, e.g. French versus Italian versus Russian. In some Asian and Indian cultures, women were altogether treated as commodified slaves.



A replier wrote
at 12:16am
Whether "feminism" is compatible with the rise of free institutions is still, however a valid question--and I think the answer is yes. However, it would be a feminism taken in a very non-statist culture, i.e. a libertarian feminism. Voltairine De Cleyre was a feminist at the turn of the 20th century who was anarchist and fought for individual rights, not "female" rights. Feminists today advocate for things besides free love and equal wages, and a woman's right to control over her reproductive health is in noway a foregone conclusion from any cultural perspective, free or not. But feminism qua feminism is not incompatible with freedom; weaponized feminism, however, is. I.e. feminism that forces changes in the marketplace and appropriates the means of others for the consequences that a woman makes by herself.

There is something TOO familiar about this as well--that women are lumped into a category much as Hispanics, blacks, whites, Asians, or whatever other ethnic group/minority you want are lumped together as though they represent a cohesive movement. It is that "lumping" that I think is the real problem we deal with as libertarians because without that lumping, without that appropriation of individual ideas, the state could have no "voice of the people" which it "had to respond to/save/whatever". Maybe I'm just tired of being grouped both with Eve Ensler who is against guns and with Sarah Palin.



A replier wrote
at 12:23am
"I have not said that women should never have leadership roles, but I do argue that at the margin more women have chosen “modern” lifestyles because of the actions of the state...I think it is folly to throw out entirely biology from our considerations. It remains another determinant from which we cannot ultimately escape, and even if we could it is not clear that we should...You did not address my biological arguments, and I think you will find it very difficult to argue that these differences do not exist for a reason."

I see no reason to disagree with you that biological differences exist for a reason. Of course they do, whether from an evolutionary survival standpoint or from a intelligent design standpoint. At one point we were amoebic; now we are not. Something "happened" to change that and I don't hate my body because I wasn't able to design it myself. (Not saying that you thought I did either).

What I do disagree with is your first sentence that I have quoted here; that more women have chosen modern lifestyles because of the state. Where does that come from? The state, back in the 18th and 19th century, didn't want women to work and have "modern" lifestyles. Women had to fight for the right to earn their own income. Perhaps you meant modern lifestyles such as free sex, birth control, abortion, etc. And perhaps that is true, but perhaps in a culture without state intervention and control over what a relationship was defined as, free sex would have no meaning as such. It would just be another relationship that people decided to engage in--or not.



A replier wrote
at 12:24am
Such modern lifestyles may actually work in reverse--where first the state prohibited it, making it more desirable to defiant people, who then got together and made it legalized so it was protected. Take homosexuality. My father who is 68 remembers when people were thrown in jail for being homosexual. He now has to study law on how to dissolve civil unions for homosexual couples. Mindblowing, but free love and homosexuality are not isolated examples at all. Marijuana and drug use themselves may eventually be legalized and become examples of how the state is intervening and corrupting our culture because ___________ (I don't know how the state would warp it, but I'm sure it would.)



A replier wrote
at 12:31am
One final point. You said "I would say also that a culture that values traditional sex roles does not cause all men to be good protectors, but it does provide a certain amount of incentive for this. Incentive that is again very much missing today."

I still don't see where this comes from, that because a culture values traditional sex roles that men will be positive protectors versus negative protectors (can we use that terminology clearly?) Rape and abuse are not mechanisms of violence; there are mechanisms of power. Their sole purpose is not male satisfaction but to teach the woman a lesson: that the man owns her. It's a very perverse psychology that is often wrapped in traditional role values that get perverted because those who espouse them feel threatened by competing cultures. That is the fine line one walks when one gives a role more to one sex than another. Eventually, all cultures are challenged, and all cultures evolve. A culture of freedom that protects gender equality before the law and in social acceptance (note, not biologically or whatnot) needs to account and prepare for that. Otherwise freedom will get negated. It's like public crime (e.g. what you see on the streets) versus hidden crime (e.g. what goes on between landlords and tenants).

As this note was your personal views being laid out, please know you're more than welcome to jump in on mine if I ever decided to lay them out as well. :)



The author wrote

at 12:44am
I was less arguing in favor of particular manifestations of traditional sex roles and more arguing against their abolition.

Catholicism clearly serves as a bulwark reinforcing traditional sex roles.

I don't condone coercion; you know that; sex roles must be accepted voluntarily.

The problem here, and this is one aspect of feminism I did not originally delve into, is that feminism politicizes everything. Everything is a "power struggle," and in the feminist view, this power struggle between the supposed "oppressor" and the supposedly "oppressed" is merely another manifestation of an ultimately Marxist belief that all voluntary interactions regardless of despite not involving coercion, should be considered coercive anyway and, the state must intervene to help the "oppressed" victim.

I really don't think the feminist project is realizable without the help of the state, and it is even more instructive that feminism has always had its eyes on modifying state mechanisms, especially the acquisition of the right to vote, and culminated during the horrid Regressive Era.

Women, as human beings, have the same rights as men and this should be recognized. But this recognition hardly necessitates an en masse rejection of traditional sex roles.



The author wrote

at 12:46am
Oh, and you think that I am saying that all women are feminists, which they, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, are not.



The author wrote

at 12:54am
And finally, I don't think I need to restate my argument as to why the state in its current manifestation undermines traditional sex roles, as I believe it is clearly delineated in the original essay starting in the fifth paragraph.



The author wrote

at 9:06am
I don't think we can ignore the state's desire to destroy power bases not dependent upon it, which fits perfectly with the "politicizing" Marxist world view of which I just spoke - everything noncoercive is coercive; everything coercive is noncoercive. It's not that women would never work outside the home in absence of the state, but I do believe the state has an incentive to encourage this, as it aids the state in its attempt to get all children into its schools. I think the breakdown of the family, which indeed has its own power structure - this is its virtue not its downfall in my view - is certainly favored by the state for obvious reasons, as people become easier for the state to control.



The author wrote

at 10:12am
Our point of contention is the degree to which a stateless order based on private property rights is compatible with feminism. I say less so; you say more so.

On 5/24/2012: The question of whether rampant feminism, either self-conscious or culturally conditioned-  using the term 'cultural' in the most loose fashion imaginable, as for any state in which society finds itself, sustainable or self-destructive - is or can be a persistent, healthy phenomena or is merely a more immediate byproduct of a certain socioeconomic phase of development in a society that is short term in nature, as a tropism that eventually corrects itself through its own self-termination, remains an open question. All of the societies that have embraced free-sex, abortion, vast sexual perversion, and androgyny have collapsed. Europe and Japan are collapsing now. America is collapsing, if we do not factor in the Catholic, traditionalist immigration over its southern border. Ancient Rome and all the pagan societies of the past collapsed into their own frenzy of orgy. China, a generation hence, might experience collapse as the consequences of the one child policy culminate.


The countries with the most sustainable path forward today seem to be those with a more traditionalist culture of the kind for which I advocate above: Brazil, other South American states, India, and other Asian countries.

No comments:

Post a Comment