Homogamy and civilizational decline

Vox Day: Homogamy and civilizational decline

...
Douthat also inadvertantly mentions the source of the problem, as the supplementation of those later ideas, especially the fictional "equality" of the sexes has been far more destructive to Western civilization than homogamy will if the judicial activists are successful in imposing their antidemocratic will upon the people. In fact, I tend to see homogamy and its assorted ills as being much more a late-stage symptom than a causal factor when it comes to societal collapse.
...

Whether or not "homogamy" will be more or less destructive of our society than feminism has been, a rational person cannot but agree that it is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the on-going societal collapse.

...
But that doesn't change the easily observable fact that the forces pushing homogamy and open homosexuality are actively engaged in attempting to destroy one of the more successful civilizations in human history. As I showed in yesterday's WND column , there is no genuine "progress" being made here, social or moral, this is simply a return to the pagan decadence of a society that was in decline 18 centuries ago. The observations of one of the first historians of women, Alfred Brittain, made at the turn of the 20th century about Roman women, was an insightful harbinger of the subsequent success of the suffrage movement.

"Julia represented the prevalent social conditions of her time. Licentiousness, like a cancer, was eating into the heart of Roman society; and this was to grow still worse. It must be admitted also that female degeneracy kept pace with the increase of woman's influence in the political world. Livia and Agrippina the Elder were exceptions; but the rule was, and has been in all history, that the activity of women in State affairs was accompanied by an abundance of meretricious amatory intrigues. It is a remarkable fact that in the history of the Roman woman--and possibly this statement might be given a much wider application--there is no instance where any individual woman designedly helped to bring about the enactment of a law for the public weal. Female politics always had for their object the advancement of the female politician's own personal interests or those of some male favorite."

To be fair, there have been the occasional exceptions over the last 100 years, such as Margaret Thatcher, but then of course she was declared to be "not of the gender woman" by fellow members of her sex for her sin of deviating from the female political pattern.* ...

The collapse of federalism -- and thus, the ever-growing tyranny of the government in DC -- has its roots in the Civil War and after-effects and in the Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court decision of 1803. BUT, it was the passage of the 17th amendment, the direct election of US senators, which finally turned the several sovereign States of the United States into provinces of an empire (in the older sense of the word) ruled out of Washington, DC.

Similarly, it was the 19th amendment, women's suffrage, which put us definitively on the road to the societal collapse and ruin we are now trying to live through.

Certainly, there are individual women who have more to offer the body politic as voting citizens than many men do. In like wise, there are individual women who can kick the asses of many men. The proportions of both are likely similar.

===
I don't see the 19th amendment ever being repealed ... short of an Islamic takeover; and then we'd have far more immediately deadly things with which to concern ourselves. And, frankly, due to the very societal and cultural changes over the past century which make repeal unlikely, I'm not sure it would even be that desirable. Our men have become feminized (*) in their thinking; removing actual women from the voting rolls could well exacerbate that trend.

On the other hand, repeal of the 17th amendment is possible if enough of The People can be brought to understand what federalism is and what its purpose/intention is.

So many of the society-destroying effects of granting women the vote ... legalized abortion, for instance, or the explosive growth of "the welfare state" -- would have been difficult to enact, if not outright impossible, were federalism still a real force in national politics.

I think we can live with the 19th amendment; but the 17th amendment must destroy us in tyranny. This was the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic (and, of course, there were a multitude of cultural factors which worked together to destroy their Republic). Now, our culture, being based upon Christianity, is not so fragile as that of the Romans. Thus, we do not need to keep our women as prisoners of their menfolk to keep the society going. Nevertheless, we must restore patriarchy if we wish to survive.

And, one way or another, patriarchy will be restored to the American and European societies; for matriarchy primitivizes and destroys societies. The question is, will it be a Christianity-based patriarchy or an Islamic?


(*) and when men take on typically feminine traits or characteristics, they nearly always over-do it into an obscene caricature.