Polity barefoot pregnant kitchen

January 1st, 2013

60

The Peak Of Democracy And The Death Of Feminism

By

We are currently living through the declining era of democracy. The age of democracy began in 1776, when America revolted from its King, but it was not until the French Revolution of 1789 and the destruction of most of Europe’s monarchies in the ensuing Napoleonic Wars did the age of democracy begin in earnest.

Alexis de Toqueville was the first political philosopher to correctly note the rise of democratic power. After traveling through the United States in the 1830′s, he claimed that the age of democracy, so perfectly encapsulated in his masterwork Democracy in America, was coming into being.

America, then, exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age of which history has preserved the remembrance. (Source)

The principle quality of a democracy is equality. It shapes every facet of democratic life—mass elections, public debates, free-markets, welfare systems, and universal education. Name an institution of the modern world today, and it isn’t difficult to see how equality plays a central assumption in its foundation. Indeed equality would become so important in the coming times that Tocqueville claimed no ruler would be able to operate without invoking its authority:

On the other hand, I am persuaded that all who shall attempt, in the ages upon which we are entering, to base freedom upon aristocratic privilege, will fail-that all who shall attempt to draw and to retain authority within a single class, will fail. At the present day no ruler is skilful or strong enough to found a despotism, by re-establishing permanent distinctions of rank amongst his subjects: no legislator is wise or powerful enough to preserve free institutions, if he does not take equality for his first principle and his watchword. (Source)

Equality, it just so happens, is also the central assumption in the feminist movement. If feminists were to argue that people are unequal, men would retort that men are superior (many women would too). Equality is the premise that allows women to con men into believing they are all fighting for the same cause.

But before we examine feminism in greater detail, consider the following graph from Freedom House, a think tank that measures political freedoms across all countries:

Democracies have increased steadily throughout the latter half of the century, continuing a trend that started at least one-hundred years prior, with a marked rise in popularity after the collapse of the USSR. But looking closer at the numbers for “free” societies in the 2000′s, we can see that there has been a steady decline in their freedom scores since the Twin Towers fell:

Technically, they classify more countries as free, but the quality of that freedom has been in decline. I believe this is the beginning of a long-term trend.

Our age of democracy has reached the peak of its growth. If we consider the history of democracy and the spread of equality since the American Revolution, there hasn’t been a major victory for democracy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Democracies peaked at the turn of the century, but since 9/11 democratic nations have begun to die, both financially and demographically, whereas emerging economies and populations are coming from nations hostile to democracy and equality.

Thus democracies will shrink in power and scope as this century progresses. It will be discredited, much like communism was, and people will seek answers outside of democratic/representative governments.  We are already seeing the transformation of democratic governments today as increasingly authoritarian controls are placed to solve intractable problems (i.e. TSA body scanners, printing trillions of dollars, never ending war, bailouts, “income based repayment” for student loans, etc).

The decline of democracy is significant for men because it also means the decline of feminism. As today’s democracies are eventually replaced with oligarchic or monarchistic forms of governance, feminists are going to have a difficult time finding an audience with their message of equality.

When thinking of feminism in historical terms, we can consider feminism as any political movement designed to regulate male behavior in favor of female opportunity. One prominent historical example was Sparta, a state which gave undue license and freedoms to its women, while treating its men like cattle.

But other than short-term historical anomalies like Sparta, there has been no other political movement more favorable for female advancement than modern democracy. At no other time in human history have women held more power than a system where equality is true. And so the rise and fall of feminism will coincide with the rise and fall of democratic governments; so utterly dependent on equality that feminism will cease to exist anywhere near its current power without it. Instead some men and women will seize and maintain vastly more political power than others, and the common citizen will unquestioningly accept the dictates from his/her new masters.

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I cannot say, but it is clear that women will cease to exist as a significant political power when there is no more democratic government to serve them; instead both women and men will be regarded as property of the state to be used and managed as seen necessary by those in power. These trends may happen quickly or slowly, but make no mistake about where the world’s political climate is heading; the age of democracy, and feminism, is coming to an end.

Read Next: Why Feminism Will Die



About the Author

is a player philosopher psychologist who enjoys a good discussion. His column runs every Tuesday. You can follow him on Twitter.

«
»

Recommended For You:


Get More Dates With Our Free Text Messaging Guide

  • Arrange dates with our easy copy/paste method
  • 9 page free PDF download
  • Get twice monthly updates for our best content and advice
  • Enter your first name and email below

100% privacy. No Spam.


  • Democracy: The God That Failed

    Disbelieving in democracy in 2013 is a lot like disbelieving in God in 1762

    Instead of teaching everyone to play chess, why not just take the best chess player and have him play for us?

    Mencius Moldbug approved

  • Anon

    “the destruction of most of Europe’s monarchies in the ensuing Napoleonic Wars”

    You didn’t pay attention in school did you. Google congress of Vienna friend.

    • Samseau

      History is more than a sequence of events. Trends start with major breakthroughs and continue in waves. The French Revolution was when the world decided it was moving towards democracy.

    • koevoet

      The Congress of Vienna was the death throes. Look at the world a hundred years later. Of the big five powers – Metternich’s Austria-Hungary was dismantled; Alexander’s Russia was toppled by a revolution; Germany (the successors to the Prussians) had lost a major war and territory. England had become more parliamentarian. France had retained the republican system.

  • http://yousowould.wordpress.com YouSoWould

    “no legislator is wise or powerful enough to preserve free institutions, if he does not take equality for his first principle and his watchword”

    Or at least giving the impression of doing so.

    The currently existing situation in Western society is that of an elite ruling class wielding the majority of power and money by manipulating propaganda and PR to give the appearance of respecting democracy to the proletariat, whilst actually doing nothing of the sort.

  • BIGINJAPAN

    It isn’t democracy that ushered in feminism, it was communism. Feminism has been founded and funded by the big family trusts in America. The ones that have secretly worked for almost a hundred years to destroy the one and only free place on this planet. They have attacked the one thing that can destroy and nation and bring her to its knees. The family.

    These are the same families and trusts that have funded Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and all puppet POTUS.

    Anybody can google ” operation mockingbird ” and research how the CIA was used to take over the media in America and control the communist/feminist agenda.

    • Samseau

      The idea that feminism was founded to bring down democracy is not inconsistent with the view that feminism needs democracy to survive.

  • Calpuleque

    I honestly think America is fucked and if you are a player you need to seriously consider relocating. America feels like it is becoming a police state and you are being watched at every corner by Big Brother. I am not exactly sure if feminism is the cause of the problems because nobody really takes that seriously (even women). I see what you are saying though. Good post.

  • taterearl

    Hello NWO.

  • Nik

    Feminism is still the tool / mechanism used to control men by draconian societies. So I doubt we will see an end to feminism.

    • Samseau

      Feminism might not die in our lifetimes, but by the end of our lifetime we will see it’s power greatly reduced from what it is now.

      Feminist laws will still exist, but they will only be enforced if it serves the interests of the ruling class. Men like Julian Assange will be thrown in jail for slipping off the condom, but white trash who beat their wives will be ignored.

      • Nik

        If the elite will be ruled by feminism you can be rest assured the vox-pop will be as well.

    • Stuki

      Draconian societies are dying out as well. Look at the Arab so called spring. The afghan model, via Mogadishu in the nineties, is where we’re heading. Not particularly friendly to isms of any kind.

  • Matthew Walker

    The progressives’ client groups are going to get a rude shock when the apex progs no longer need their votes, but white men are going to remain a threat for many years to come. “Racism” and “misogyny” will remain useful sticks to beat them with.

    • Matthew Walker

      …which @Nik just said.

      Nik, you didn’t used to live in Strasbourg, did you?

  • Plato

    Um, The USA has never been a democracy. “And to the republic for which it stands.” People hear the word so much, they have been deluded into believing they actually live in a democracy and their vote matters. When a voter goes to the polls and votes for the president, their vote has no legal meaning under the US Constitution what so ever. White women were not allowed to vote until 1927. Equality in the US did not even come close to a reality for all adults until the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

    For the majority of our history women were completely dependent on men economically. In other words, they had no money. That started to change after WW2. The game changer for women was the sweeping change in divorce laws, namely “No fault divorce.”

  • http://ajauntylife-rulingpart.blogspot.com/ RulingPart

    People who long for the end of democracy see themselves as the elite. Wouldn’t life be grand if the rest of us recognized their brilliance and just let them run things? I’m very pleased that our ancestors rebelled against their unelected masters in 1776, and created the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth in the process.

    Liberty, not oligarchy, is the American way. Test that at your peril.

    • Samseau

      Democratic traditions will most likely exist in America for a very long time. But this article looks at democracy as a worldwide trend, and the pendulum is going to swing back.

      • http://ajauntylife-rulingpart.blogspot.com/ RulingPart

        That’s a fair point, and a very interesting article. Very well done.

    • http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com Martel

      Democracy and liberty are not necessarily synonymous. I would much rather live in an undemocratic state that respected my rights than a democratically elected one like Hitler or Morsi’s.

  • AnotherAnon

    Just say “No” to Democracy, and “Yes” to Kings!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

  • Anonymous

    I really wish you guys would stick to your bread and butter. You guys are male lifestyle bloggers in a land that is, well, lacking male lifestyle bloggers. These off the deep end political articles diminish the overall message of the site which, correct me if I’m wrong, is improving yourself as a man. Quite frankly, they also diminish your credibility as a site. Your conclusions may even be right, but the quality of writing and argument is lacking, especially in this piece. And that’s ok, I wouldn’t expect lifestyle bloggers to nail political articles in the same way I wouldn’t expect political bloggers to nail lifestyle articles. If you are going to write political articles I would recommend leaving them to Roosh or someone else who can weave in unique life experiences.

    • http://ajauntylife-rulingpart.blogspot.com/ RulingPart

      I think it’s wonderful that this sort of site exists, and I applaud the author for stating his horribly misguided case so well. “Men’s lifestyle” ought to include discussions of big ideas. To strive to be a gentleman is to strive to participate in the world, not to obsess over the 3 roll 2.

      And doesn’t a democratic society require interested citizens to question it? Isn’t that a good thing?

      • Anonymous

        The point here isn’t censorship, it’s bandwidth. You can extend the “enhanced by big ideas” argument arbitrarily to just about any cause. But as a reader I get more out of the lifestyle articles than these whacky political diatribes. Not only is this article not up to snuff in writing and in reasoning, but it’s on the fringe of what draws me to the site. If RoK moves away from lifestyle and more towards politics than I’ll just replace it in my reading rotation with something that gives me more utility for my time.

      • http://ajauntylife-rulingpart.blogspot.com/ RulingPart

        Looks like I can’t reply to your reply, so I’ll reply to my reply.

        That point is well taken. I think that’s what I took issue with, and I see that I was mistaken.

        I have to disagree with you about the quality of the writing; the author’s take on the subject is certainly distressing to me. I would like to see democracy expand, not contract, and he seems to applaud authoritarianism as an antidote to the excesses of feminism. In my view that’s a terrible trade. I think the answer to a cultural problem is a change in the culture, not the installation of a tyrant.

        I like the idea that Roosh has expanded his public interests beyond seduction. I heartily welcome more articles on politics, philosophy… anything, really. A well-rounded man is many things, and considers many ideas. More of the same, please.

      • http://ajauntylife-rulingpart.blogspot.com/ RulingPart

        AAAAAAANNNNNNNDDDDDDDD… the “enhanced by big ideas” argument can be applied to many of life’s arenas because it is a universal truth. More education is always better; more discussion is always better as long as it does not impede action.

        You agree with that, surely. May I call you Shirly?

    • Samseau

      Don’t project your lack of imagination unto others. Understanding trends is always the way to profit.

      • Anonymous

        C’mon now, you’re the actual author. You’re better than this. First off, you lead with an ad hominem attack on one of your readers. Second, your statement is vague enough that it can be arbitrarily extended to argue the existence of any article you can write.

        Look, I applaud you for posting something controversial but that doesn’t mean I have to come back for seconds. Nor do you have the power to shame me into reading it by claiming “lack of imagination.”

    • Roosh

      What’s a lifestyle blog?

    • http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com Martel

      First, part of being a man is learning how to be more than what you already are. That includes stretching yourself and your field of knowledge. That’s what these articles are about, even though this one isn’t my favorite.

      Also, there’s plenty of lifestyle stuff here, too. If you don’t like these articles, skip ‘em.

    • Anonymous

      I’m sort of eating crow on this one now. Athlone’s latest article was amazing.

    • Glengarry

      Concern trolling is fun.

      • Anonymous

        Alternatively you can just blindly agree with everything they post.

  • Unending Improvement (@UnendImprov)

    I’ll take democracy over anything proposed as an alternative.

    • J.M.

      As if you had democracy…hahahaha, In time the West just replaced a blood based aristocracy for a financial aristocracy,which in some accounts is even worse! Your founding fathers didn´t want that, hence their warnings about the banks and the creation of central Banking as well as a warning against uninformed voters and the impossibility to preserve functional democratic institutions with a bunch of dumb voters. Look beyond the rhetoric and see the actions of your politicians for what they are.

      • Unending Improvement (@UnendImprov)

        I forgot that I’m working in the fields.

      • http://ajauntylife-rulingpart.blogspot.com/ RulingPart

        Jefferson warned against a national bank and Washington warned against political parties, and both of those warnings seem highly relevant today. True enough, but so what? If our democracy is flawed, it should cease to exist? To be replaced by what? A blooded aristocracy which is not flawed? That seems hopelessly utopian to me.

  • knuckledragger

    Feminism and the faux-equality it hinges on is going to wrap up sooner than we might imagine. This whole “equality” premise hinges on the more capable people in society carrying the weight of society while giving lip-service to the idea that they are somehow inferior to the people they’re accommodating. The economy is going down the tubes, everything is going to start getting expensive, and people are going to start getting nervous. When employers start looking at prospective employees as who can keep this company from failing instead of who can make for a nice diversity-postcard, the cream is going to rise to the top and, no surprise, 9 times outta 10, that cream is going to be a man.
    I’d bet in under ten years, women are going to nearly back to where they belong: minding their f*cking manners and shaking their asses during their short shelf lives in order to attract a man who will keep them alive.

  • theone

    @ anonymous
    Don’t bother trying to argue with this guy. I have said it before but he is by the worst guest poster Roosh has on here and I wish he would stop posting articles.

  • Glunder

    All this, and not one explanation of what “equality” means in the various contexts mentioned.

    The equality discussed by Tocqueville is not the same AT ALL as the “equality” sought by the French Revolution (which was a non-stop horror show and emphatically not something to be admired, let alone emulated).

    • http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com Martel

      Exactly. American equality is simply equality before the law and before God. It has nothing to do with remaking society.

      The American revolution created a new government, the French Revolution tried creating a New Man. That type of crap leads to heads rolling, and it did.

      The French Revolution was spawned by the ideas of Rousseau, the Patriarch of the future Matriarchy. He had a ridiculous view of human nature, on the sexes, and his definition of “liberty” was beyond dangerous.

      That bastard and Kant are responsible for the decline of Western Civ more than anybody else.

      • Glengarry

        Would you say we have american equality today though?

  • Dillon

    There is no utopian political system invented by man yet.

    Each has its own pros and cons, thus a society must make its choices and sleep in the bed it makes.

    • Stuki

      Not to be pedantic, but individuals make choices, not “societies”. A society is merely an aggregate of individual actors.

      • Dillon

        I don’t see what your point is.

        Individuals don’t exist in a vaccum. They learn, immitate, follow and collaborate with others. This collection of individual choices makes up our society.

      • Glengarry

        But collective choice is much more difficult than individual choice. And much less legitimate.

        (Also, society is of course not the same thing as government.)

  • Stuki

    As Marx would agree, basis drives culture, not the other way around. Democracy came about as a means of justifying power during a time when the natural sciences proved that regular joes could simply look at the world, experiment, to glean truth, instead of having it rammed down their throats by “authority” figures. And, military advances, first longbows, then individual firearms, enabled the same joes to challenge standing armies.

    In other words, the asymmetry in military capability between ruler and ruled shrank, and the illusion of intellectual superiority enjoyed by the rulers shrank as well.

    Over the next few centuries, and particularly since ww2, things have gone in reverse. Joe gun nut simply isn’t all that much Of a threat to the DC mob anymore. While credential ism, newspeak excessive intellectual property enforcement etc. have once again enabled the well connected to fashion themselves as somehow more knowledgeable. Cue confiscatory tax rates, tea, working men stripped of their life’s work in banana divorce courts, female suffrage, and all manners of dysfunctions.

    But, things are moving the other way again. The Internet is short circuiting the ability of the rulers to monopolize thought. Bitcoin is enabling people to shift activity and savings outside the realm of confiscation. 3d printing, Internet information dissemination, the rise and sharpening of coherent ideologies that does not demand bending over for self proclaimed authority etc., is once again simultaneously challenging the rulers claim to the truth, and making it more feasible to simply exterminate them, should they try to enforce their increasingly irrelevant world views by military might. Just as what happened in Somalia in the nineties. And during Arab so called spring in the past few years. It’s coming here as well.

    • Samseau

      Right now all the countries where the Arab spring began are suffering greatly under military regimes. The Arab Spring is a case against democracy and freedom, not the other way around.

      • Stuki

        Neither Libya or Egypt are stable. In Egypt, the traditional military is having its hands full simply preventing an all out civil war. In Libya, even that seems to be too tall a task for “the military”. In reality, both Egypt and Libya are veering towards control by militias with occasionally overlapping interests. Not “one true national army”

        The so called Muslim brotherhood, which is excerting lots of influence across the region, is largely pan national. And not very centralized. Instead, individual, local imams form their own power bases, largely on the basis of how well they play to local sentiment.

    • Dillon

      The Arab spring is a perfect example of uselessness of violent uprising. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  • http://www.twitter.com/dumasworld dumasworld

    Interesting article but the starting point is false.

    “The age of democracy began in 1776, when America revolted from its King, but it was not until the French Revolution of 1789 and the destruction of most of Europe’s monarchies in the ensuing Napoleonic Wars did the age of democracy begin in earnest.”

    In 1776, the nation who you revolted from, was a democratic nation. It already had a ‘constitutional monarchy’ and a Parliament who made the decisions. Democracy existed in the UK from 1660 with the reinstatement of the monarchy in a weaker form, post Civil War and the introduction of the Bill of Rights in 1689 following the Glorious Revolution which limited the power of the Crown to a ceremonial state. This piece of legislation is still in place in every commonwealth country and even your own US Bill of Rights (and the French Declaration of Man and Citizen) is practically a copy of this.

    Maybe the Americans only get taught 200 years of history, hence 1776 is like the birth of Christ in American schools. The main instigator for the war was the Stamp Act of 1765 which taxed the colonists as Parliament felt that the colonists were the primary beneficiares of military activity in North America. These colonists used the ‘Bill of Rights’ considering it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent. So in essence a revolution to start your democracy was enabled by using democratic legislation. The colonists appealed to the King, but the King had no power, Parliament is elected by the people and the King did what Parliament told him to do which was to label the colonists as traitors by royal decree. The USA was not a democracy until the abolition of slavery, France and the UK preceeded this.

    Also great spot on Sparta.

    • Samseau

      (Great comment. This is some good history here.)

      There is no question that modern democratic philosophy originates from England. However, you are mistaken in thinking I’m presenting an American point of view. My line of thought and reasoning is from Tocqueville, who is French, but I understand if this offends your English sensibilities.

      Regardless, to claim England was a democracy during the time of America’s revolt isn’t true, and unfortunately wasn’t something I had space to address in the original article.

      George III still had ridiculous amounts of power and could issue “royal proclamations” which had nearly as much power as a law passed by Parliament. Indeed there was a royal proclamation passed against America by George III without the Parliament condemning American traitors. But, even if we do not accept that England was a monarchy, that doesn’t affect my argument for one simple reason.

      The contrast to democracy that Tocqueville talks about isn’t monarchy, it’s “aristocracy”. Rule by aristocrats was the norm in Tocqueville’s time, and the historical shift from monarchy to democracy, which really began with the Magna Carta, followed the path of “monarchy > aristocracy > democracy”. It was a devolution along Aristotle’s political power schemes from one ruler to few rulers to many rulers.

      (I strongly suggest you read the Tocqueville pages I linked in the original article, you will find much more detail than I can provide here.)

      Thus the Parliament of King George III’s time was aristocracy, as only land owners could vote and generally speaking it was only those with established nobility in their bloodlines who had any land during that time. This is in direct opposition to American democracy of the time, where landowners in America were common and voter-ship was truly widespread (compared to any historical norms). That is why I place the birth of modern democracy with the American revolution.

      Incidentally, after America successfully revolted from England, George III lost considerable power to the Parliament. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, and afterwards the English King would never have as much power again.

      • http://www.twitter.com/dumasworld dumasworld

        The American retort was a joke, it’s something that’s generalised about whether American’s are taught history! (possibly due to the many comments along the lines of ‘Do you know the Queen?’)

        Great reply, I’ll have a look at Tocqueville’s pages but using what you have put in your comment, namely the path to democracy from monarchy via aristocracy then I can agree with your view of the birth of modern democracy via American Revolution.

        Just read that Tocqueville source, that’s some good stuff, something to add to further reading lists.

  • Robert Kastle

    Look, it’s hard to be the originator of difficult concepts, and I applaud you for tackling the connection of feminism-equality-democracy. From my point of view, the fundamental contradictory constraints, the Catch-22, of democracy is that either you have to include equality for those who do not contribute financially to the democracy, or you don’t include them. More practically, this critical question is do you let college students, jobless and homeless people, women who stay at home, or any other person who does not create direct financial value participate in the decision making in the democracy? If yes, like in the USA of today, then you will have a constant redistribution of wealth from those who create value to those who do not, and that democracy will create laws that cripples the wealth creating apparatus leading to the dissipation of that democracies power. If no, like in the early democracy of the United Kingdom, where the decisions were made by the landed male gentry, then you have a system where the rich get richer and the poor, which becomes an unruly mass, will revolt.

    Will democracy end? I don’t know, surely eventually something will replace. But what will be the catalyst? The Nordic countries are now flirting with the concept of “fairness.” Could that be the “equality” of de Toqueville’s era???? Learn a bit about complex adaptive systems. Long-term, but often tenuous, equilibrium, dotted by extreme and short-lived disruptions leading to new equilibrium. That’s my belief on what’s going to happen.

    And yes, giving women equality, without their earning it, is highly irrational…

  • Anon

    Well I for one am tired of the uninformed having a voice in this country. The average American’s reading level is 7th grade, no? That really says it all.

  • A♠
  • That Guy

    The problem is not simply feminism. Many groups engage in legal plunder. Some are just more successful than others.

    A great, relatively short read from the 1800s on the systemic issue:
    http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

  • Brandon 2.0

    Yes, this post enlightens me. The peak of Democracy, in my view, was around 1999, though the trend of negativity in the world will most likely become more intense for quite sometime.

    Now we’re experiencing financial debacle with increased authoriatarianism in the US which should become more extreme in the next 4 or 5 years. Afterwards, we can expect a short recovery with spending cuts in military and entitlement programs, resulting in fewer international conflicts. This leads to an even sharper crash that will end in the biggest global conflict yet, not to mention massive epidemics all probably resulting in over a billion deaths.

    This, I predict, will pan out over the next 4 or so decades. There will no doubt be zero tolerance for radical, fat ugly cunts during such extreme times.

Back to Top ↑

© Return Of Kings



Back to Top ↑