, 96 tweets, 35 min read
HOW CIVILISATIONS FALL

A thread on how civilised nations fall taken from the thoughts of Australian political theorist Kenneth Minogue (1930-2013).

Pictures of young women are also included to drive the points home but mostly to garner likes and retweets.
KM was described by Roger Scruton as "no mere academic" but "a conservative activist cos he was in the business of defending old-fashioned civility against ideological rage, & he believed this was the real meaning of the freedom the English-speaking peoples created and enjoyed"
The standard view is that civilisational collapse happens due to degeneracy and stagnancy. The civilised peoples become soft and spoilt by the rewards of civilisation: society degenerates, birth rates dwindle, morality disappears, introspection rules.
Then - the barbarians. Swarthy types rush in and conquer the effete Eloi. They pillage and rape, but over time the power of a superior culture is felt, and these barbarians adopt and sometimes extend the ways of civilisation, until they too are overthrown in their turn.
It was easy in the past, but in these modern times of cultural relativism when all cultures are believed to be equal, how can we even assess when a superior culture has fallen to an inferior culture? Relativism means the loss of the tools to assess even one’s own decline.
Civilisation was once a sensibility shared by a certain class, while barbarism was found not only outside, but also in the slavish & stupid who dwelt within civilisation itself. Ancients were careful not to give them power: “idiot” once meant someone who didnt partake in politics
In modern democracies the relation between a culture and a class has disappeared. Everyone is now touched by the higher forms of culture. Schooling, museums, and the media are available to all.

As is the vote.
But barbarism remains an active force in modern societies, partly in gracelessness and ignorance, and partly in a loss of cultural coherence found among those who mistake a few years at an institution of higher learning for education itself.
You must remember that the tendency towards barbarism is an active force all around us. Western society’s walls won’t be stormed without, but from within. Those who hate civilisation know that it cannot be taken by direct assault. It must thus be captured from within.
This was the plan adopted by many revolutionaries who built a new hostile tribe called “the proletariat.” They could be made into a revolutionaries by equipping suitable people (EG: workers) with a unified consciousness, so that they always understood themselves as a collective.
The proles were taught they were being victimized by the oppressive bourgeois. Like the guardians in Plato’s Republic, these revolutionary insurgents had to be taught to be docile within the movement while snarling at those without.
This became the model for all subsequent movements aiming to take power. But revolutionaries soon discovered that a prole revolution only really works if you are dealing with fairly unsophisticated peoples: preferably non-Whites who lack all experience of freedom & political life
A question: if you were seeking to destroy a civilisation, who would be the most powerful ally to your cause? Maybe one that formed about half the population? Maybe one that was in every household? Maybe one that even otherwise intelligent men listen to?
The first 1960s feminists were generally women who had taken some sort of degree & were living domestic lives. Technology had liberated them from housework while pharmacology had released them from excessive procreation. This is the tribe that now threatens civilisation.
Differing from their predecessors, feminists made one innovation that has been crucial to the destiny of the West over the last 60 years. They suppress totally the idea that they want a transfer of power. They operate entirely on the principle that their demands are morally just.
Minogue believes the reason for this change was boredom. The malaise of privileged women due to “a slow death of the mind and spirit.” Feminism was born of boredom, not oppression. The solution? Women clamoured to become wage-slaves; they resolutely fled the challenge of leisure.
This is important and we will come back to this: what is meant by leisure? To the Ancient Greeks and Romans it meant higher employment of the mind once the necessities of life have been dealt with. Remember this. It’s one of the crucial differences between the sexes.
Women need to be radicalised and have their indignation and moral righteousness exploited to turn them into effective 5th columnists. Feminists turned the home into prison, work slavery into happy liberation, and husbands and fathers as the oppressors who confined them.
What radical feminism essentially did was to deny complementarity between the sexes and set men and women up as competing teams playing exactly the same game, but a game in which all the rules were stacked against the women.
It’s only on this eccentric assumption - that women have identical talents and inclinations to men - that they can support the conclusion that there has been foul play. The basic principle is one of flattery: “Women are uniquely talented goddesses who have been suppressed by men”
Feminism is fundamental. It means that all judgements must stem from identity as a woman or as an oppressor of women. There’s no nuance. In WW2 Rosie the Riveter was a woman, but she was also a wife, a patriotic American and many other things too. Now she’s just a sacred woman.
Feminism is not only an attempt to destroy an existing power structure, but also the civilisation it sustains. It is an attack from within that exploits certain features of our civilisation: our civilisation that was built by the achievements of white males - and only white males
Civilisation is a succession of clever men developing the set of traditions or inventing the benefits which constitute where we are today. And from Thales and Euclid to Edison and Bronze Age Pervert, very very nearly all of them were male. Thank you dead white men!
“What about Chinese philosophers? What about Arabic mathematicians?”

Shush. I am discussing primarily western civilisation here, which anyway is the civilisation that has contributed the bulk to our modern global and homogenised nascent world civilisation.
Men create all civilisation, though of course it is true that without the medium of social/political life none of this could have happened. Like all social life, Europe was a world of sexual complementarity, and there’s no way of sifting out what was contributory from what wasn’t
But of women we may say what Falstaff said of himself - namely that he not only had wit but also was a cause of wit in others. Women may say it isn’t fair to judge on these qualities, but by setting women up as a weak team in relation to inventive men, that’s the game they’ve set
It’s in pursuit of this mistake that they’ve attempted to set up a competing set of writers, philosophers, painters, etc whose talents were suppressed by the patriarchy. These resuscitated figures are often worth looking at in their own terms, but they cannot serve as a new canon
For centuries women have determined the way we live. Radical feminist doctrine is that this is not enough: women can only be recognized as equal, and enjoy equality of esteem with men, if they are recognized as excelling in exactly the same activities as men.
Women must, as a team, be able to point to a scoreboard of artistic and technological achievements on the same scale as men. Feminist tribal consciousness depends upon this. But it just isn’t there. Anyone is is really honest and truthful knows it isn’t there.
This whole charade depends upon the fallacy that women are the same as men & their happiness is found in the same areas as men. But this is untrue: it’s a mistake that could only have occurred to women who have been deranged by superficial contact with education in the humanities
(I know this is a long and meandering thread but I promise it’s all going to make sense by the end. We’re getting to the collapse. In the meantime, do enjoy the tits.)
Western civilisation is unusually open compared to others. At various times in the past many women have had access to education. From the 18th century onwards some women developed a taste for taking up professions restricted to men. By the 19th century they were in the colleges.
In doing so, they often suffered a certain derision from the more brutish among their male confrères. Other men were always on their side, however, and during the first half of the twentieth century women broke into many fields previously restricted by convention. Thanks betas.
The openness of Western culture is shown by how many women were enjoying higher education and finding distinction in professional fields as we entered the 20th century. In India widows were still being thrown on funeral pyres and in China women’s feet were still bound.
The numbers of women who largely devoted their lives to these fields was relatively small, and some people thought this was a problem, but it was only a problem for those who took their bearings from statistics rather than from the responses of actual people.
The key to modern Western civilisation is its openness to talent wherever found. This is the left’s own propaganda: America is special because it welcomes and uses all. Talented women were never shut outside, just as talented Nazi rocket scientists and Indian coders aren’t either
Once women enter a field, especially combined with relativism, the protectors of a status quo have no weapon to stop the advance. Women have always demanded what they want, and that continues when they enter workplaces and electorates.
Our previous boomer elites acquiesced that all moral and religious ideas on gender were merely subjective. They could not agree on a defense, and the attack often came from within their own families. The goal of the attack was to get women into the higher ranks of the workplace.
In earlier times women didn’t want to work. The world of work outside the cosy hearth was hardly inviting. Farming required relentless physical input beyond the strength of most women; nor did many express a wish to exercise the broadsword.
Today? Getting women to work isn’t hard since the thing called “work” is now largely done in centrally heated offices in front of a PC with a nice chair & other women. In the push-button world men have created, physical strength is never needed, especially in more attractive jobs
Work had been the curse of Adam, parallel with childbirth as the curse of Eve, but work is now a rather agreeable shuffling of symbols in an office full of friendship and event. Very little work happens in female-dominated workplaces: it’s just endless drama and snacking.
It is not difficult to present this kind of work—the kind that interested the humanities graduates who largely fuelled the radical movement—as a liberation from the confinement of family life and the tedious babble of the toddler.
This also fits the socialist view that a person’s value is their contribution to the welfare of others. Leftists have long dreamt of absorbing the family into society: everyone living communally, women working alongside men. The final achievement of justice against oppression.
How did the feminist revolution succeed? Don’t kid yourselves that it didn’t. You live in a matriarchy now. But before men held most of the cards and still lost. How? What happened?
It’s the evils of democracy. It’s the result of not believing in a moral code. It’s of opening the door a little and assuming it won’t be booted wide. It’s also due to men’s biology who are built to protect women and are prone to their manipulation.

Enjoying the girl photos?
A small group campaigning for benefits will always prevail against a large majority whose direct interests are but marginally affected. Feminists were a small group, but their message rang at some level to most women, & most men had wives/daughters whose good they wished to help.
No political party ever took up all of th Feminist program, but it did electoral prospects no harm to convey a general sympathy for the cause, and once in government enthusiasts would advance legislation under the motherhood slogan of equal opportunity.
Very soon a network of powerful bureaucracies was bringing radical doctrine to bear on all areas of government. The courts could be relied upon to extend their power by regulating contract and by extending the law of tort.
Within a generation, the revolution had not only succeeded but also created throughout Western nations an occupying army of equal opportunity officers entrenched in personnel departments up and down the country.
And now we get to female quotas in the workplace!
There are of course some workspaces where women don’t demand too many rights. These areas are either where women graduates have no wish to go (rough outdoor work) or where lack of ability could lead to instant disaster, such as brain surgery or piloting commercial aircraft.
Colleges are a soft touch because the consequences of educational betrayal take decades to emerge. The effect of diversity quotas has been to fill humanities departments with women in order to equalize numbers “distorted” by STEM where even passably able women are hard to find.
Many women in the humanities departments are indeed very able - I met one once - but many are not, and they have often prospered by setting up fanciful ideological courses (especially in women’s studies), which can hardly pretend to be academic at all.
What of areas where women are patently unsuited: the army, police, firefighting? They have all been attacked because although women are unsuited to the rough work at the bottom, these areas have enviable managerial opportunities higher up.

It’s one more irresistible gravy train
Fitness tests that women can’t pass are deemed discriminatory and therefore illegal. Standards are lowered. We don’t need barbarians rushing at the gate to topple our defenders. Women already did the job for them internally.
No one doubts the inferiority of women in physical strength and sport. No football team would think of fielding women against a first-class team of men. Yet Western govts, currently feeling unthreatened by any major power, are prepared to gamble their security on female warriors.
“Hey anon, you say you believe in equal opportunities for women, but why are there no women in management, or as bishops, or as professors, or heads of big corporations? Why are women paid on average only x percent of what men get paid? I thought you loved me?”
And as women dominate the universities they dominate the ruling ideology. Every moral judgement of what is left of what Western civ stands for has to pass through the all-pervasive strainer of female self-identity. All matters now put the promotion of women first & foremost.
Imagine if the church was still an influence. Q’s are raised when female clergy enter. Jesus had only male disciples. Was God’s son then merely a creature of his own culture? Here we see how the entry of women changes entirely the conception of the activity and not for the better
Indeed while women as individuals have often enhanced what they have joined, the entry of women in general has seldom done much for any area previously dominated by men - except, significantly, bureaucracy.
The feminist program is to make society, the army, the colleges, corporations, everything, conform to an idea, and the women want to go where the men are, to be fully integrated so that when dirty and unfeminine jobs must be done, there are men to do them.
Feminists once dreamt of setting up their own societies but then realised they needed to have men around. They wanted to be integrated. And this happened not because political wisdom declared it necessary, nor because electorates pushed for it, but was due to bureaucratic inertia
Let us now return to the question of why the male custodians of our civilisation sold the pass. There are many reasons. One must be cowardice: giving into women’s demands in the hope of a peaceful life. The cuckold husband stab in the back to all the great men who came before.
Our 20th C leaders were white, male, & middle class, and leftists have long been engaged in a campaign to erode the morale of each of these abstract categories. They denoted racism, sexism, and elitism respectively. Men found it difficult not to be written off as evil oppressors.
Some men were supporters of liberal feminism and believed that radical feminism was merely a rather hysterical version of classical liberalism. Feminists were ok except for one or two angry lesbians!
Yet retreat is a notoriously difficult maneuver to control. Each concession can be used to demand further concessions in the name of consistency. Hence the appearance in all Western countries of legislation mandating equal opportunities—and who could possibly be against that?
Women took over the universities, public bodies, firms and, above all, the media. Hiring for status-giving jobs requiring degrees had become closely circumscribed by a set of rules. The dogma was that 50% of all jobs belonged to women, though the reality of quotas was long denied
There are deeper currents too how men let this happen. One of them is that men tend to react to radical feminism with a high-minded feeling that nothing but justice, a notoriously fluid idea, should determine public policy. Men have a sense of fairness built into them.
Cocooned from the immediate consequences of folly, and increasingly detached from any profound understanding of the culture that had produced them, the trusting trustees of our civilisation have utterly sold out their descendants.
The big breasts of women, their deep eyes, vivacious curves and full lips - not to mention their shows of innocence and helplessness - all of these have been used as weapons to pull on men’s sense of responsibility and con them into handing over the keys to power.
Did you follow this thread just to gaze at the high-definition photographs of tradwives, insta thots, porn stars and e-girls? Then you are part of the problem. You are part of what made civilisation collapse. You made the woman in this photo possible.
This thread is not yet done, but there shall be NO MORE pictures of pretty women accompanying each post. Instead you will be subjected to images of what modern women have become as civilisational restraints have disappeared. If you don’t like, feel free to stop right here.
The feminist revolution is nothing less than a destruction of our civilisation... and it has all happened in such a way that people have not yet realised what has happened. There are some who might say, well, at least it has improved the condition of women.

This is a mistake.
Such a view would accept the fatal dichotomy that men and women have separate destinies. In fact, of course, they do not. Some might think that this thread reeks of misogyny - but it is weak men I save my severest scorn for. They helped cut the ties between the sexes.
Men who are not allowed to be men become miserable. Women who are not allowed to be women become miserable. Look at the face of this woman in this photo. Look what throwing away all our heritage has done to her. Do you think she is happier than her grandmother?
Women have specifically feminine qualities of their own which prevent them, as a general rule, from fitting entirely successfully into the structures men have created. No problem, say the feminists: let us change the structures! That can indeed be done, but something is lost.
The point is that “men” put “women” (if we may generalize wildly) on a pedestal, and also despise them as weak; love and adore them in chivalrous terms, but also tend to oppress them and use them. A parallel ambivalence is found in the way women treat men.
A whole world of games & conventions has grown up around these attitudes, and they look different when viewed from the bar or the bedroom, the saloon or the shop. Feminism is essentially a humorless rationalism which seeks a single right attitude to be forced on men & women alike
There is a further point, and a more complex one. Civilisation only advances because of innovation. It lives off ideas. Sometimes academics attempt the paradoxical business of trying to theorise innovation and creativity, but the results are inevitably banal.
Remember way back in this thread when I talked about leisure and how it was viewed by the Ancients? It was these moments of leisure, away from work, where the real thinking was done that gave birth to invention. Without defined gender roles, it’s hard for this leisure to exist.
And it MUST be men that have the time to contemplate and bring forth the fruits of civilisation. Only men - a small number of a certain type of man at that - are the producers of 99% of all of our civilisation’s advances. Without society’s support, they have no time to advance us
Men and women approach boredom and leisure differently. For women, the terror of boredom breeds drama and led to the feminist movement in the first place. For men - some men (those of high intelligence and learning) - it’s their opportunity to philosophise, invent and inspire.
The reason why this is - the idea of the Head Girl vs the Lone Male Genius - is a whole different thread in itself. To learn more I recommend reading The Genius Famine by Edward Dutton. A copy is here:

geniusfamine.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-ge…
Creativity is essentially mysterious. What is clear though is that women do not have this capacity to innovate. They bring great talents to developing what Thomas Kuhn called “normal science,” but they have no record of creating the “paradigm shifts” that lead in new directions.
It may be, of course, that as the feminists sometimes claim, this is because they were never encouraged to engage in these activities. But to need encouragement, to depend on models to follow, is precisely not to have a capacity to innovate.
It is MEN who invent things and conquer nature. Men who climb mountains or sail alone around the world. And once men have done it, women then do it. Genius remains beyond most men, but it also exemplifies the fact that innovation remains largely the specialisation of white males.
Women can do marvellous things with a house, but they do need the house to be built in the first place.
Civilisation has been attacked and conquered from within, without anyone quite realizing what has happened. It was attacked by those we least suspected of treason - those that lived in our homes and whom we sought to protect and love.
We may laugh at the more crazier feminists, but the chains women have now put on the world are a manacle around our hands. It binds us quite tightly, though some freedom must be left, because without the contribution of subjugated males, things would very very rapidly decline.
What modern egality amounts to in reality is a treaty of accommodation reached between the conquerors and the conquered. Women have forced their way into money and status, sometimes beyond their merits, but they have lost their own freedom and worth.
To be “socially included,” as women have been in the workforce, has many practical advantages, but it involves a spiritual loss. Often it involves a biological one too.
So far the conquerors have not destroyed the geese that lay the golden eggs, so the surface of our civilization does not reveal how profound the change has been. But underneath that surface, there are currents which no one understands.
There has been a revolution, then, but a silent one. It has taken place with such stealth, and so gradually, that people have become accustomed to it little by little.
I am reminded of the famous Chinese executioner whose ambition it was to be able to cut off a head so that the victim would not realize what had happened.
For years he worked on his skill, and one day he cut off a head so perfectly that the victim said: “Well, when are you going to do it?” The executioner gave a beatific smile and said: “Just kindly nod.”
You can read Minogue’s full article at ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses0…

Thank you for reading. Please enjoy this final wholesome pair of tits as a reward.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Mencius Moldbugman
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!