Today is not the first time that feminism has threatened to destroy civilisation. It’s very interesting to note, if you study the mythologies of the ancient Levant on which Christianity is based, how the Goddess, symbolic of women, became identified with Satan. The serpent and the dragon (just a bigger version) were always creatures of the Goddess. The day aspect of the Goddess in Sumerian mythology was called Inanna (later Ishtar) whose uncle, Enki, was her closest ally. Enki frequently appeared as a snake. Later, still in the eastern Levant, the Akkadian god Marduk kills the Goddess in the form of Tiamat, a huge dragon. (This gives us all the Medusa, St George and so on stories.) Satan, of course, in the Garden of Eden, is the Serpent — the Goddess’ closest ally. This identification of serpent/dragon/goddess/woman pervades our culture.
Why does it do so? Feminism, of course, argues that this was a plot to suppress women by demonising them. But that’s not the only possible explanation. Could it be because women have tried to dominate society in the past and the stories are a warning against ever allowing that to happen again? Because our forefathers knew what happened when women emasculated society.
Early settlements were women’s spaces
The early settlements, at places like Catal Hoyuk in Anotolia and Ain Ghazal in Jordan, were women’s spaces. We can tell this by looking at the way they are organised. There’s no city wall; no defensive structures. They’re just agglomerations of houses around a central space, where women and children would have gathered. You can see an identical development form in many parts of the world today, for example southeast Asia. These were matriarchal spaces, built around women.
Civilisation always begins with defensive structures. Usually, a wall or palisade is the first thing to be built. Why would this happen? Because men’s role is defence and protection. It’s the first instinct of a man, after the urge to reproduce: protect your family from outside.
What was outside? Perhaps hostile people but more likely, animals. And not just predators. Large herbivores and raiding animals had to be kept out too; there’s not much point in cultivating crops if they can be stolen.
Feminism has spent much time trying to establish a different timeline, such that monumental cities were built before the walls surrounding them. In only one case, Caral in South America, have we ever found a monumental city with no surrounding wall. The reason is that one was not needed: Caral is in a desert and there was neither another city nearby nor threat from animals. Perhaps a wall was just not necessary. But that is a decision that men could as easily have made as women. They, after all, were going to have to build the city; if no wall were needed, why go to the trouble?
All the evidence we have is that the first cities, even Caral, were built by men. Not one was built by women.
Once we have well defended cities, of course, it becomes an easy task to go and attack other cities without fear of retribution; this is often claimed. Men, in this model, are naturally bandits, who will, at the drop of a hat, set off on rapine and plunder.
The trouble is, it doesn’t make sense. If your city has a great wall and so does mine, what’s the point in me attacking yours?
The First People of the Americas might have a clue for us. Amongst the north American tribes there was a practice of staging mock battles. Participants carried sticks dipped in paint, with which they hit each other. If you were hit, you were out and the paint-daub proved it. The team with the most standing at the end, won. This was called by colonials ‘counting coup’ after the French word for ‘strike’. In essence, it was the ancient equivalent of paintball.
So could rivalry between cities have developed from this harmless play? We don’t know; but the fact that equivalents to ‘counting coup’, in the playful, regulated form of sport is practically a human constant practised everywhere, is a strong support.
But if men were happy meeting up in teams once a week, running around hitting each other with curved sticks and then getting royally leathered afterwards was so popular, why would war begin?
The purpose of war, though much agonised over in the contemporary context was, in the ancient one, simple. It was to acquire wealth. No more, no less. You stripped the defeated enemy of his goods and chattels and carried them off to your city.
Why? Men are basically simple souls, happy to go hunting, fishing, playing football with each other. In some tribes, such as the Yanomami, violence is a part of inter-clan culture but even there it is strictly regulated. It’s war with rules. Similar systems existed in the Celtic worlds and indeed, it is likely from this that ideas of chivalry — originally a code of battle between chevaliers or knights — came from: the regulation of violence. In other words, all out war is unnatural to men — which should surprise nobody, since fighting to the death is rare in social animals.
Plunder and looting
So where does the plunder and looting come in?
For this, we need to look back home. The primary imperative of a man is to sire children and naturally, he wants to sire them with the best possible mother. This choice is usually made on the basis of physical beauty, but not always.
In a society wherein property is accumulated, everything has a price. So, sex itself has a price. You can no longer woo your beloved with a couple of rabbits for dinner; you have to prove your wealth and ability to ‘take care of her’.
We don’t know when the traditions of bride-price (paid to the groom’s family) or dowry (paid to the bride’s) first appeared but it was certainly present in ancient Uruk. Further, it is often argued that writing, enumeration and accounting were all invented in Sumer, by women, who used clay balls with inscriptions on as tallies. So women invented not just money but money-based, rather than barter-based, commerce, and sex was one of the very first commodities they sold; we even know that reitualised temple prostitution — which still goes on in some parts of the world — was important to the Goddess temples of Sumer, because it was an income. All women in Uruk, for example, were expected to prostitute themselves on the steps of the Temple and the money went straight into the coffers. If a child were conceived, she would be raised in the Temple as a ‘child of God’.
Men did not invent prostitution; women did. The reason for that we shall discuss elsewhere but, in essence, it boils down to the fact that, where women were inaccessible to men, they would form pederastic relationships with boys, which were not taboo anywhere in the ancient world. It was far easier for a man to find a boy as a sexual partner than a woman. In other words, women were in competition with boys for casual sex.
Bride-price and dowry: proof that women have made sex into a commodity
Both bride-price and dowry indicate that sex has become a commodity that can be purchased. Severe penalties were meted out to young women who became pregnant outside wedlock, because they automatically became a social burden. Men, on the other hand, in many cultures, established sexual and romantic relationships with boys until they had the wherewithal to marry. This, in Greece, was called pederasty but it appears to have occurred almost everywhere.
This development meant that young men hoping to attract the best wives required a fortune and warfare was just the way to get it. For thousands of years from the time of Eannatum, King of Lagash (c. 2455–2425 BC), up to the present time the principal purpose of war has been and remains the acquisition of property or power over it. The acquisition, in other words, of wealth.
It doesn’t matter whether the specific culture prescribes a bride-price or a dowry; in the former, the groom and his family must find the money and in the latter, the girl’s father and his family must. So they have to go out and get it and the easiest way is to steal it. Stealing from your own tribe is unacceptable so you have to steal from someone else. This is war, socially sanctioned violence.
Men had no choice then, but to build city walls. How else could they stop marauders coming in to steal back what they had stolen — or even, as in the case of the Sabines, carry off the women and girls entirely?
This is the reason for the close association between women, the Goddess and warfare. Inanna, the light aspect of the Goddess, is lust and death, while her dark counterpart, Ereshkigal is tranquillity and rebirth.
Inanna, Ishtar and many other goddesses are at once both nubile maidens and deities of war. Why? Because men go to war to secure marriage with them. This creates a nexus: women, sex and death.
Apollo and Dionysus
Men are Apollonian and women Dionysian. Men are of the bright day; they rule with law and honour. They seek clarity. They like rules and are prepared to obey them, even to the death. They are methodical and economical. Men have feelings but they know that to be men, these must be mastered. Intemperance is the greatest dishonour for a man.
Women are not like that. They personify the Dionysian and as such they are of night. They thrive in the darkness of nuance, of mystery and myth, of feelings and impressions. They are happy to let their feelings be known; indeed, they weaponise them. They detest rules, as tennis player Serena Williams demonstrated, in her appalling tirade against an umpire earlier this year. Yet they insist on female privilege, which is what allows them to get away with behaviour like that, when a man would not.
The dilemma faced by men has always been the same. They love and desire women for physical pleasure, for the satisfaction of feminine beauty and, of course, as mothers of their children. But they also know that women are destructive and dangerous; that they will see death if it please them, but they will use a man to accomplish it. That is what gives us the archetype of Lady MacBeth. The risks of association with a woman is scarcely less, for a man, than those of the spider as he approaches his mate; after the pleasure of coitus, he will be made to pay.
Mythology and history expose the menace of feminism
The mythology and the historical record, tell us that when men are emasculated and women assert political authority, civilisation fails. War, chaos, anarchy, ruin, death and destruction follow. There is plenty of evidence from the Levant and elsewhere that catastrophic warfare broke out because the masculine rule of law and order collapsed. Civilisation is a function of masculinity: men build it, not women, but lust for women is the destructive force that destroys it. That is why the codes that civilisation is founded on, like the Laws of Hammurabi, were put in place by men, not women, and why they constrain the activities of women, That wise old king knew what their intrigues could do, how their whispers and coy glances could set man against man and that men, being Apollonian, could never understand how they were being manipulated.
Camille Paglia was right when she said that if culture had been left to women we would still be living in grass huts. Every great civilisational triumph, everywhere, has been because of men; not one was because of women. We did it.
Women, contrary to the lies of feminism, had their chance. The evidence from pre-civilised cultures suggests that the matriarchal hubs they revolved around were politically dominant. That changed when we began building cities; but why did it? In every instance where civilisation appeared, it was created by men. Why? If women were so great at running the world, would they not have built Uruk, Jerusalem, Athens, Rome? Why didn’t they?
Because making babies is what women do, making culture and civilisation is what men do. When we follow this simple rule, successful civilisation results; when we lose sight of it, civilisation collapses. And that is what we are seeing today, in the West.
Modern feminism turns women into men. It denigrates motherhood in favour of playing masculine roles in society. It encourages young people to think that ‘gender is just a construct’ so unhappy boys can be girls and unhappy girls can be boys. But why are they unhappy? Because they have been taught, by the whispering serpent of modern public education, which is itself no more than a mask for feminism, that ‘conventional gender roles’ are bad — despite the fact that gender and these very ‘gender roles’ have been central to human success. It is no accident at all that a recent UK report bemoans that there are almost no male primary teachers left and even in high school, women teachers outnumber men many times over. This catastrophic state of affairs is almost as bad in Higher Education, where there is now a 60:40 imbalance in favour of women in US universities.
Why all of this? Because feminism knows that the only way it can fully take over society, since actually killing men would be both dangerous and illegal, is to persuade them that being men is worthless and the only value in society comes from women. What lies!
I don’t care how you want to see yourself or what you want to wear; but modern feminism has consequences — such as, Western cultures are now running at a reproductive rate of around 1.5. In other words, they are already dying. The reason they are dying is because the lying serpent has indoctrinated women with the idea that being mothers is ‘second best’ and, if you should be so foolish as to give birth to a child, you must not waste your life bringing it up; no, that you must delegate to properly trained agents of the serpent, so that they may not acquire any ‘wrong ideas’. And, of course, you must not permit a man to be a part of the upbringing of the child, especially if that child is a girl; no, she must only have female role models and influences.
Western culture, the most advanced the world has ever seen, is now threatened by feminism and where it starts is in making boys think that becoming men is distasteful, dishonourable, even as they persuade girls that the single most definitive and rewarding thing a woman can do, becoming a mother, is a betrayal of her sex.
Feminism wants to destroy civilisation; we must not let it
When feminists say they want to destroy the patriarchy, what they mean is they intend to destroy civilisation itself and teaching boys that masculinity is bad is where they begin.
The history of the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean tells us that civil war is the likely result of a feminist take-over of civilisation and the serpent is not stupid; she has read her history books too. She calculates that if she can make boys ashamed to become men, they will accept a condition of tolerated servitude that much more easily. That perhaps they will not take up arms and go to war in defence of civilisation. That perhaps men will just lie down and accept it; the Matrix realised.
I say it is time to prove feminism wrong, to show that men will resist them, that we shall fight and that we shall not acquiesce in our own termination or go to sleep and watch passively as everything that has made us great is destroyed.
Which thought reminds me of Kristanna Loken and her role as the Terminator in the third of the series. That version of the Terminator was made a woman through simple tokenism, but how revealing a slip it really was; for the Terminator we face today is indeed, a woman. A woman without children, not a mother, an emotionless cyborg, an ersatz pastiche of womanhood with no femininity left at all. The ideal feminist woman.
Loken’s character was, of course, defeated by an icon of masculinity, Arnold Scharzenegger. My question is, where is our Big Arnie now? Where is the masculine hero who will save civilisation from the serpent Terminator?
Originally published at Rod Fleming’s World.