Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?

Summary: Radical feminism is bringing American society to a pre-revolutionary situation, as men realize the new system of gender relations does not work well for them. The next posts describe the mechanisms that will drive the revolt. We can only guess at what comes after that.

“That is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of Grand Theft Auto V?”
— Wisdom from the military’s supercomputer (WOPR, the War Operation Plan Response) in the film WarGames. Slightly tweeked.

Broken heart

Understanding the problem

We live in a post-revolutionary society. To see the scope of the changees, see this analysis by Dalrock, about the redefinition of chivalry: “Why Game is a threat to our values.” It was the behavior of warriors; now it the behavior of nice beta boys.

“Chivalry is also the way we reconcile the concepts of male and female virtue.  Our unstated assumption is that being chivalrous is sexy.  This is why Game is such a corrosive concept in our society.  Game teaches that chivalry is an attraction killer, and that women are instead attracted to a host of traits that are neutral at best. The problem we have is that young men now are able to see for themselves that Game works.  This is true even though most men are not able to master Game in practice.  The men who fail at seduction are able to observe the men who succeed, and it is painfully obvious that chivalry really is an attraction killer.  …

“The threat that Game poses is not that large groups of men will learn how to put it into effective practice (although many have and will).  The threat comes from its assault on young men’s belief that chivalry is sexy and therefore chivalry is virtuous.  Even worse, a young man doesn’t even have to ever hear the word “Game” or directly study its theories to be at risk of concluding that chivalry isn’t sexy.  This is a message that is slowly making its way through the culture.

“Game is so corrosive to our moral order because the normal methods to return to course only make the corrosion worse.  Lectures on the importance of chivalry will be met with ridicule, since chivalry is unsexy.  Lecturing men to be unsexy for the sake of virtue will likewise fail because our very definition of male virtue is sexiness.”

Also see his debunking of gender-neutral chivalry, and his description of how the concept of “chivalry” has been repeatedly repurposed since its Medieval origin: “Courtly Love: The origins of cuckchivalry.

These radical change in our core aspects of gender relations have left young men adrift, without rules or models in their relations with women. They are also alone. Even many Christian conservatives advocate a feminist model of gender relations that exploits men. Dalrock has written scores of posts about this. I recommend starting with “Headship tomorrow and headship yesterday, but never headship today

Why Women Should Rule the World
Available at Amazon.

The revolution

Women began the revolution, dynamiting the old order. Now girls’ Game rules. See this about one form of girls’ Game (romance, party-of-her-life, marriage, kids, divorce, community property, child support, independence). For a more vivid and literary explanation, see the second half of “Stacy’s Credo.” Women are often explicit about the new order. See these words that drastically changed the American family.

As a result, our society’s dating and family systems no longer work well for young men. Previous posts explain why and how.

The gender wars continue as feminists move into the third phase of blitzkrieg. First they engaged their foe. Then they achieved a breakthrough. Now they are in pursuit of their broken foes, exploiting their advantageous position to gain more power and restructure society.

  • See the campus rape epidemic, with its shifting definitions of “rape” and bogus research (here and here) — and kangaroo court justice (e.g., saved only by the explicit video replay).
  • See the “MeToo” hysteria, with shifting definitions of “harassment” (see here and here) – and selective mob justice (the man is guilty unless he is Bill Clinton).

Responding to the revolution

Game (and MGTOW and Red Pill lifestyle are first stage reactions by men to the revolution. For example, how can men respond to an empowered woman? Some men use “Game.” Some men are “Game.” The wisest of men understand the futility of Game. As an illustration, see this scene from “The Prodigal Son” in Season 2 of “Miami Vice.” Don Johnson, as Detective James “Sonny” Crockett, shows a master-level response to girls’ Game employed by an aggressive young woman in their first meeting. He just refuses to play.

“I don’t like this game already.”

This vignette shows a man who has moved beyond “chivalry.” This is the essence of Game and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). This also shows the limits of Game and MGTOW. Crockett walks out into the night, alone. That’s not a path that will work for many men.

Conclusions

Game, etc., changes the behavior of some men, but that is a trivial effect. Despite the grand claims by some men, none of these early stage responses by men have had much effect on society, or even slowed the feminist revolution. But they force recognition by men that the current system no longer works for them. This insight is gradually spreading, irresistibly. Eventually it will bring our society to a pre-revolutionary condition. See Dalrock’s “What can’t continue, won’t.”

Then only two ingredients will be needed to create a massive counter-revolution, much like the two components of a binary explosive: groups of men standing together (pack formation) and the development of new values. Those are the subjects of the concluding posts in this series. We can only guess at what comes after that.

Boxing in the Gender Wars

See the other posts in this series

    1. A return to traditional values.
    2. Men finding individual solutions.
    3. Part 1 – An expert discusses individual solutions.
    4. Part 2 – Discussing women’s responses to men’s solutions.
    5. Part 3 – An expert sees wonders ahead!
    6. Part 4 – An expert: respect is a key battleground in the gender wars.
    7. Part 5 – An expert’s insight: Game is toxic to feminism
    8. Part 6 – An expert describes the road to respect for men.
  1. Modern dating: the only winning move is not to play.
  2. A counter-revolution: packs of men.
  3. A counter-revolution: new values.

Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issuesabout feminism, and about marriage.

More insights from Dalrock

Books about the new era of gender relations

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters by psychologist Helen Smith (2013).

The Privileged Sex by Martin van Creveld. You will never see women’s role in society in the conventional way after reading this, by one of our era’s greatest historians.

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters
Available at Amazon.
The Privileged Sex
Available at Amazon.

51 thoughts on “Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?

  1. Just as an aside, in the Medieval period, the highest form of chivalric love was adultery, as it was considered pure love, ie not for advancement, dynastic arrangement or property, and carried considerable risk to both parties, hence such reckless behavior could only be motivated by true love (I can think of other motivations however). For example consider the love triangle of Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, or the Chatelain de Coucy.
    What we consider Chivalry is simply manners plus the crusading ideal, as idealized by the British Victorians, this was a mixure of christian theology and concern over status. In actual fact game is far closer in spirit to the original concepts of Chivalric love.

    Right up to the Victorian era and beyond to some extent this attitude pervaded society. An excellent example of Game dressed up as Chivalry for the purposes of seduction is
    Les Liaisons dangereuses – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Liaisons_dangereuses from the late 18th century.

    This is not a criticism of the authors thesis, just an observation that that past has been appropriated by the present for the purposes of a social contract, now that contract is unraveling we realize that what it was based on no longer exists, and may never have existed at all. My hunch is marriage will continue, but it will be predominately for the wealthy as a way for preserving family assets (as it used to be, and still is in most of the rest of the world). Without assets marriage is based on love, for a while this was enough (the culture and government both strongly supported the institution) but now that culture is ambiguous and Government seems to be actively legislating against marriage it is in decline.

    In short Game is on the rise because we are returning to a concept of Chivalric love, not because Chivalry is dead.
    The age of Arthur is over finished, this is Lancelot’s time. Time to don your Armour and get on your horse.

    Leave the computer games to the children.

    1. Gerard,

      (1) “in the Medieval period, the highest form of chivalric love was adultery”

      True. Dalrock knows this. See his “Courtly Love: The origins of cuckchivalry.

      (2) “an observation that that past has been appropriated by the present for the purposes of a social contract”

      Yes. But that is how evolution, both social and biological, usually works. Mutations — new biological forms or processes, or new social ideas — are rare.Generally change comes by repurposing existing structures and processes. Which is why terms like “conservative”, “liberal”, and “chivalry” have such different meanings over time. Hence the popular if futile assertions that modern liberals/conservatives are not “real” liberals/conservatives.

      The repurposing of high-status aristocratic terms, such as chivalry and gentlemen, for general use in the society require deep redefinition. It was a big success, helping make the western society that is now dying.

      (3) “now that contract is unraveling we realize that what it was based on no longer exists, and may never have existed at all.”

      The first is true. The second is a sentiment I see among young men. They look at their world and are astonished to imagine that the world of 1920-1970 really existed. They regard it as a myth, like Oz. For a long time I had the same reaction to tales of their world. I could not imagine (literally, a failure of imagination) that conditions — and women — had changed so much during the past 30 years.

      (4) “Time to don your Armour and get on your horse.”

      Less dramatically, I believe we need to again revise our values. New insights are needed. As usual, they will be built on those of the past.

    2. And Arthur getting the Graal is about him stopping to be a dwindling beta and finding back his manliness (aka his readiness to be alone if that’s what it takes) to go back to the Game?

    3. Gerard said:
      The age of Arthur is over finished, this is Lancelot’s time.

      These days they call him Tyrone and he’s perfectly willing to dumpster dive (as opposed to just going after Guinevere). The ugly reality of the sexual marketplace is quite a bit different from what was sung about by troubadours.

      Time to don your Armour

      Time to walk away if you have something to lose. If you don’t and don’t care what the future brings, you can act like Tyrone.

    4. Ray,

      “the sexual marketplace is quite a bit different from what was sung about by troubadours.”

      That’s a powerful point. A basic of historical analysis is that there are always precedents, since history is a remixing of themes — with the combinations and magnitudes varying. But the current gender revolution has only weak precedents.

      Much like effect of nukes on state-to-state war, contraceptive tech created an inflection point in history. While this is a commonplace observation in academic literature, many in the public have not realized this.

    5. ” They look at their world and are astonished to imagine that the world of 1920-1970 really existed. They regard it as a myth, like Oz. For a long time I had the same reaction to tales of their world. I could not imagine (literally, a failure of imagination) that conditions — and women — had changed so much during the past 30 years.”

      This is very true, in my part of the world this generation have gone the opposite direction. They are ascribing a fantastical ease of living to the world of the 60’s and 70’s Ireland, houses were virtually free, employment was for life ect, in comparison to the constricted circumstances they feel they exist in.

      Interestingly, my parents have told me how the Hollywood movies in the 30’s and 40’s with there depictions of loose living and opinionated women were condemned by politicians and clergy as leading a chaste and pure Catholic Ireland astray,

    6. Gerard,

      “the Hollywood movies in the 30’s and 40’s with there depictions of loose living and opinionated women were condemned by politicians and clergy as leading a chaste and pure Catholic Ireland astray”

      Having seen how conservative Baptist saw the world, I can understand that. In 1990 my church re-drew its bylaws — removing the prohibition on members chewing gum and dancing.

      Still, those views are a minority. Hollywood censorship was quite tight after 1934 (the Breen era). Not much loose living explicitly shown on the big screen without punishment following.

  2. Modern liberalism is tipping into fascism. They have talking points, forbidden issues, loyalty tests, and banning of the damned. A Google engineer was ‘disappeared’ for party disloyalty. No mercy. Here is a story about a loser of the game. “The Brown Skirts.

    1. Jon,

      Thanks for posting to that story.

      For a long time I didn’t appreciate these fictional vignettes as a powerful art form. It was a lack of imagination on my part, and failure to realize that these are — like much of “classic” literature — people’s attempts to understand, to process, the changes in their world. It is the same as Balzac’s La Comédie humaine, which was an attempt to feel out post-Napoleon Paris.

  3. Thanks, Larry. Satire, comedy, poetry, etc., have long been a source of social commentary. From Lysistrata to A Modest Proposal to Don Quixote to Mulan to The Divine Comedy to Walter Cronkite’s, You Were There. They all are microscopes on where the culture is at that moment and, more importantly, where it is going. They are also the only way people can express themselves, sometimes. Inquisitions happen aplenty. 1984? It Can’t Happen Here? Metropolis? In a Kingdom Far Away? I agree. This is how we process what is happening around us. They’re called The Humanities for a reason.

    Jon.

    PS. I just saw Frozen on Broadway. I noticed a few themes you might be interested in. First, the despicable character, Wessleton (Weasel Town) makes two extremely sexist comments. She’s just a girl, and What do you expect from a woman? And when Kristoff declares his love for Anna, he very pointedly asks her permission before he kisses her. Though earlier Anna is shown to be sexually aggressive, once fantasizing with a statue and then with Hans.

    Beware the high heel jack boots!

    1. “Beware the high heel jack boots!”

      Maybe the problem, metaphorically in general, but for quite a few men in practice, is that many guys seem to like said boot.

      That is the core of my overall doubts about a “counter revolution”: the general willingness and ability of most men to take a lot of crap in life and carry on with a “c’est la vie” attitude. Those not willing to take it will, for the most part unspectacularly and far from the public eye, not commit, and weed themselves out of society and the gene pool, just as those unable to compete. Which brings everything back to some simple questions such as the strength of the willingness to reproduce in each and everyone of us: along with that to survive, this is the main drive in any living thing, and not so easily overcome.

      That social systems (the “HUSBAND 2.0 for many women) are bound to collapse in a maybe not so distant future, passing de facto from a more or less sustainable thing to a Ponzi scheme, may very well be the price to pay for this revolution. But hey, what matters is the happiness and accomplishment of the rich (often white) girl, the true normative force of contemporary western societies. Maybe 10 to 20-25% (if you count those who identify and aspire to the model, but won’t really become it) of one gender has to be satisfied, and who cares about the rest?

    2. Tancrede,

      “the general willingness and ability of most men to take a lot of crap in life and carry on with a “c’est la vie” attitude.”

      That’s been said at the beginning of every single revolution in history. It is why most revolutions fail. But history is shaped by those that succeed. So that insight by itself tells us nothing.

      The key factor determining success is usually ignored, with the elitists’ “those stupid people” belief. In fact people are not stupid, and make cost-risk-benefit evaluations quite well. The factor that I believe will lead to a counter-revolution is quite simple: marriage has a poor cost-risk-reward balance. Slowly men are realizing this. Social change always starts slow. People tend to overlook the early stages of the “S” curve.

    3. Jon,

      Again, thanks for the comments on literature. The role of this in the feminist revolution (e.g., Handmaid’s Tale) has been well investigated. The emerging counter-revolutionary literature has been ignored. Probably because even writing about it makes one an outlaw. So the action is on 4Chan, Reddit, and bandit websites (soon to be blacklisted by Google and FB).

      Re: Frozen.

      I recommend reading Dalrock’s posts about it: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/category/frozen/

    4. Larry Kummer said:
      Ray,

      I don’t believe ACT’s large claims. Let’s see what evidence he provides.

      Fair enough Larry. The ancient Chinese often originated technology that they never utilized to its full potential and it’s not clear to me whether they just didn’t pursue the matter further or actively suppressed it. The case with the Japanese where they managed to introduce and then remove firearms does appear to be well documented and was discussed in Wikipedia.

      My larger point is that going “backwards” like that is very much the exception that proves the rule and can only happen when several factors are simultaneously in place. Japan at the time of sakoku was an insular, top-down culture that had the means to turn its back on the influence of Western Europe. That is no longer possible in our high-tech, interconnected world.

    5. Ray,

      (1) As you note, historians have long attempted to explain China’s failure to well exploit the tech they invented. But that’s not what ACT said.

      (2) “The case with the Japanese where they managed to introduce and then remove firearms does appear to be well documented”

      First, that’s not what ACT said. Regulation of a tech, even its prohibition, does not mean the tech is lost. Second, that is false. From Wikipedia:

      “From the mid 17th century, Japan decided to close itself to interaction with the West as well as its close neighbors of China and Korea through its policy of Sakoku. Contrary to popular belief, this did not lead to Japan “giving up the gun.” If anything, the gun was used less frequently because the Edo Period did not have many large-scale conflicts in which a gun would be of use. …It should also be noted that isolation did not decrease the production of guns in Japan—on the contrary, there is evidence of around 200 gunsmiths in Japan by the end of the Edo Period.

      “But the social life of firearms had changed: as the historian David L. Howell has argued, for many in Japanese society, the gun had become less a weapon than a farm implement for scaring off animals.[20] With no external enemies for over 200 years, tanegashima were mainly used by samurai for hunting and target practice, the majority were relegated to the arms store houses of the various feudal lords (daimyōs).”

      (3) “My larger point is that going “backwards” like that is very much the exception that proves the rule”

      My point is that such stories are mostly myth. There are some periods of regional decay that result in lost tech, but they are both rare and isolated — not global.

    6. Larry Kummer said:
      First, that’s not what ACT said. Regulation of a tech, even its prohibition, does not mean the tech is lost. Second, that is false. From Wikipedia:

      I stand corrected Larry.

    7. Ray,

      I’ve had thousands of such conversation, showing hard data in rebuttal. I can count replies like your on both hands. That’s a greatness of spirit seldom seen in comments.

  4. Hmm. There’s another issue. What is the modern movement we are discussing? It’s not like it hasn’t happened before. There are sexual revolutions every two generations or so. 1880’s Europe. 1920’ Flappers. 1960’s Hippies. Today. Going further back, Nunneries have been brothels, Romans drove birth controlling herbs to extinction, Egyptians had a method made of crocodile dung for birth control, sheep intestines are still popular some places, needles through the soft tissue of infant heads and the Kama Sutra attest to the human desire to have it all and not be bothered by the rest. Hypocrites only forbade one method of abortion because it endangered the mother. He did not forbid abortion in general. Oedipus was bound as a baby and left on a hillside to be eaten by wolves. It was a normal, accepted family control method of the time. But that wasn’t the sin of his parents. The sin that outraged the gods so much was that he would live to commit the one unacceptable perversion: Incest. All the others were fine, though. Carry on.

    As far as evolution is concerned, we are not even a blink. Barely a raised eyebrow. Or an itch. We may go on about how this new generation with their birth control, and their sex, and their sex, and their birth control is going to poison the gene pool for eternity. It’s already happened. And it already didn’t. Look at some of the homo erotic literature and paintings of medieval Persia. They had just the same issues that we have today. Blink and they’re gone. Things will go on, just like they have for forever.

    Old news.

    1. Jon,

      (1) Much of that comment is quite false. The current gender revolution began with the invention of safe, cheap, effective contraceptives. There is nothing remotely similar in history to the resulting changes in gender relations.

      (3) The stories about Siphium are largely myth. The Wikipedia entry is a good start to debunking it. As the BBC notes, “With just a handful of stylised images and the accounts of ancient naturalists to go on, the true identity of the Romans’ favourite herb is a mystery.” The current excitement comes not from any vast ancient literature about it, but to John Riddle’s 1997 book Eve’s Herbs (prof of medical historian at North Carolina State U). Note he said it was used as an abortifacient, not a contraceptive.

      (3) “As far as evolution is concerned, we are not even a blink. Barely a raised eyebrow.”

      In time, yes. In impact on the world, no. Hence the proposal to call this the Anthropocene epoch. That’s big time for the eye-blink time since the invention of modern tech.

    2. Follow-up to Jon’s comment

      More about John Riddle’s book Eve’s Herbs. Although this story has become widely accepted by the general public, the reviews by professionals were skeptical. Some were devastating to his claims.

      Gigi Santow in Population and Development Review, Dec 1998.

      Helen King in Medical History (a Cambridge journal), July 1998.

      “When using modem pharmacology, Riddle accumulates materials which do not always say what he claims.”

      Monica Helen Green in Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Summer 1999.

      “His thesis hinges on his belief that women understood the code that substances labeled “menstrual regulators” and “emmenagogues” were really contraceptives and abortifacients in disguise.” He ignores the fact that premodern theories of female physiology were premised on the belief that menstruation was a vital purgation.”

      Gary B. Ferngren in the New England Journal of Medicine, 6 Nov 1997. Excerpt:

      His thesis, however, is a highly speculative one that is built on very slender data. The problem for Riddle is the absence of evidence of the widespread use of effective contraceptives before the modern era. He is forced to assume that because of social constraints, knowledge of contraception remained a secret lore, which was transmitted orally or alluded to in written sources in coded form. Not only is much of the evidence adduced by Riddle circumstantial, but in too many cases he must account for the silence of the sources by invoking the necessity of their cloaking the real intent of oral contraceptives. In fact, their silence much more plausibly argues against the widespread use of contraceptives. In order to avoid this conclusion Riddle resorts to ingenious argument that not infrequently amounts to special pleading and the use of circular reasoning (see, for example, pages 156 and 157). Even more problematic is the extent to which traditional contraceptives were effective. …

    3. Larry, I concede most of your points. History is a mystery, mostly. And a mystery written for today’s needs. So much of it is false, or rewritten into the common lexicon of today to support our agenda. You are right to view history with suspicion.

      Point 1. OK. I don’t have examples of exactly the same thing happening as today, since our ancestors did not possess the steam engine or the Internet. But our current technological façade is just a passing thing. Human sexuality is enduring. I was talking about sexual revolutions. But if I understand you correctly, you are talking about a culture where women can function independently without having a dependence on a man to support her, her children, and her old age, as well as her sexual drive. She wants to have her cake and eat it, too. Granted. That hasn’t happened before.

      Point 2. My mistake. Abortifacients, birth control, infanticide, they were means of culling the population and making family sizes more manageable. I agree.

      Point 3. I have an issue with the Anthropocene. We are in no way able to make a whole geological age. Geological ages take millions of years to accumulate, condense, and compress into layers. At best, in ages to come, we will be a smear in the rock record that future geologists will ponder. Kind of like the KT barrier.

      Jon.

    4. Jon,

      (1) “since our ancestors did not possess the steam engine or the Internet. But our current technological façade is just a passing thing.”

      I explicitly referred to “safe, cheap, effective contraception.” Not steam engines. Also, I doubt that tech is “a passing thing.”

      (2) “Granted. That hasn’t happened before.”

      We agree. That’s the essential thing to understand about our situation. The lack of useful precedents makes choices unusually difficult. Hence the popularity of “lets turn back the clock” solutions. Fundamentalist Islam showed that this is possible, but the cost is high.

      (3) “I have an issue with the Anthropocene. We are in no way able to make a whole geological age.”

      Given your view of tech as a “passing thing”, that makes sense. It’s a minority opinion.

    5. Larry, Sorry. I misinterpreted your point 1. Or maybe I read into it WRT contraception. Either way, my mistake.

      But as for technology being a passing thing. How long do you expect it to last? We have reified technology. Or even worse, deified it. Tech is out God. But gods need sacrifices. And the sacrifice to our god is energy. Like the gods of old they wanted wheat, lambs blood, then the lambs themselves. Then men. Now they want coal, wood, and oil. And nuclear. What happens when those sacrifices are no longer available? No more oil. No more coal. No more uranium. It’s fine to say that technology is a life saver. It is! We talk via technology now. But technology does not create energy. It consumes energy. Even when technology is excavating energy, ala fracking, it is consuming energy to extract the energy that is already there. Technology cannot create energy. It can only use energy that is already there to do some work, a portion of which must be invested in obtaining more energy to feel the technology gods of the future.

      We may disagree but I do not think that solar or nuclear fusion will be able to replace the abundant amount of energy that fossil fuels have provided us over the past 150 years. Tantalizing as it is, there’s no way of harvesting it. This is an opinion, I know. And I hope I’m wrong. If we land on a space ship someday, I owe you a coke.

      Point 2. Thank you.

      Point 3. OK.

      Your follow up point. It’s ambiguous at best. So. We just don’t know what the ancients did. I’m sure it made sense to them.

      Jon.

    6. Jon,

      “How long do you expect it to last?”

      What tech revolutions have been reversed? Any of the early ones — fire, the bag, flint-stone-metal tools, agriculture? Pre-industrial revolution tech, such as waterwheels and windmills? Any of the modern ones of the industrial revolution — steam engines, looms?

      While there have been falls in some regions, the overall directionality is forward. Could that change? Yes. Your confidence that it will change seems unjustified, imo.

    7. “What tech revolutions have been reversed? Any of the early ones — fire, the bag, flint-stone-metal tools, agriculture? Pre-industrial revolution tech, such as waterwheels and windmills? Any of the modern ones of the industrial revolution — steam engines, looms?”

      Interesting question. and not to fall to an anti-recency trap – all of them. Ok serriously though.

      Modern world was created by western creativity. I’m not sure I see anywhere else that can grow it. And I’m doubtful on other locations maintaining it.

      I will however give an example of a technology that was defacto abanodoned for a period of time only to come back after centuries and from another source. Steel in China. For about 100 years, around AD1000 China ruled the world in steel production. No where else was really doing it, and certianly not at the scale (about 35 tons a year or say 7000 10lb steel tools per year). But it was snuffed out by the Manderins, and it would have to be rediscovered by Europe several centuries later.

      Oh howabout the road (and wheel) in North Africa, and the Middle east starting about AD700? These fine Roman items had to be brought back to North Africa centuries later. Heck agriculture (as planting) was largely abandoned in the same area, in favor of herding. This was even put into affect in Spain by the same culture, and in Spain had repercussions throughout the period of the ‘Spanish Empire’ some 800-900 years later. I will conceed that the farming was not totally abandoned, just that farmers couldn’t keep herders off their farmlands through legal means.

      My point – tech can be abandoned or forgotten if the powers that be decide that it is a threat to their power (neuveaux riche in China) or of no use (roads and farming in Middle East, Africa and Spain). If current changes continue in Europe, and other areas of the world, we will see a people who can’t maintain a thing abadoning it. – Which Victor David Hanson has noted is a problem in California with its roads and water system.

      Will we humans abandon these technologies? I’ve no idea. But to say we won’t is to deny what human cultures have done in the past (and a recency fallicy) and to say that we will is to miss out that humans are not so much homo sapian as homo inventus (or tool user, but my fake latin isnt up to that).

      Although Energy – that is the big one, if we run out of energy we are so screwed. I don’t know that we will, I hope our inventiveness will allow us to find another source before a current one runs out. Or more efficent ways of using our current energy sources.

    8. ACT,

      (1) “But it was snuffed out by the Manderins, and it would have to be rediscovered by Europe several centuries later.”

      My knowledge of Chinese history is almost nil, but a quick search does find anything supporting that statement. Can you provide a pointer?

      (2) “the road (and wheel) in North Africa, and the Middle east starting about AD700?”

      Ditto. Note: an economic regression that prevents construction of large-scale infrastructure (eg, roads) does not mean that the knowledge of roads — let alone the wheel — was lost. If that was so, there

      (3) “‘or of no use (roads and farming in Middle East, Africa and Spain)”

      Farming as lost technology in the Middle East, Africa, and Spain? Please provide some evidence. Unless you have some idiosyncratic definition of “farming”, I think you are (to be polite) exaggerating.

    9. For the record – mass produced easily available hormonal birthcontrol has been an inflection point. I suspect in the grand history of it all perhaps as big as fire or agriculture, but I will have to think on that some more.

      Consider that it gives control of the natural over to man. Examples like able to plant and grow seeds instead of wander and gather them – agriculture. Big shift. Or animal domestication – hunt wild animals or herd and slaughter kept ones.

      And with such a change came behavior changes in humans. Take a bit more time to see how it really balances out.

    10. ACThinker wrote:
      My point – tech can be abandoned or forgotten if the powers that be decide that it is a threat to their power (neuveaux riche in China) or of no use (roads and farming in Middle East, Africa and Spain).

      The “powers that be” in China lived in an isolationist, politically unified world. It’s one that’s very different than the one that we live in now. They were also able to abandon the advanced tech because it was economically possible for them. Do you think we could just decide to abandon air conditioning or pumping oil due to top down directives? Not going to happen.

      Will we humans abandon these technologies? I’ve no idea.

      From my reading of history, I would say it’s very unlikely. It’s possible for technological suppression to occur in an isolated, top-down culture where it’s “nipped at the bud”. The Japanese also managed to suppress the military use of firearms during their sakoku period. The same didn’t happen in Western Europe due to its lack of political unification.

      Although Energy – that is the big one, if we run out of energy we are so screwed.

      I don’t see a shred of evidence that’s happening. Oil has enjoyed a largely competition-free run for many decades but that’s rapidly changing.

    11. Ray,

      I don’t believe ACT’s large claims. Let’s see what evidence he provides.

    12. Larry and Ray,

      First again, this is off topic of original post. Second, this is long.
      Third, I’ve reread the post by Larry that kicked of my post and noticed he does make allowances for specific regions losing tech for a while pre modern communications (reply to Jon at 27 March 2018 at 11:58 am). I had missed him making that allowance, and was making the point that tech can be lost perhaps even permently (how were those pyramids build in Egypt?). So my bad.
      Forth, Ray’s comment that it is unlikely humans will abandon technology I will say is largely true. I was merely point out that it was possible and the causes seem to broadly fit in the “powers that be did something” or in the “I’m to busy getting food to care about tech.” There could be others. And to be an abandoned tech, it had to be generally useful. Japan giving up on guns (about 1500 or 1600) is not a “guns are more useful than muscle powered weapons.” In Japan at the time limitations the tech of firearms would have been about break even with bows, and limitations on iron would have made mass production of firearms difficult.

      Source for the examples is Rodney Stark’s “How the West Won” published 2014. I can’t give specifics on chapters etc, as I did the unabridged audio not the physical book. I have listened to it several times. This does mean I’ve not fliped through is sources, but I think Amazon will have his bibliography page – they did for his “God’s Battalions: the case for the Crusades” book.

      He has a chapter on Technology that is the source of my claims on the Chinese steel industry in the middle ages. I will give a bit longer presentation now that before –
      I don’t recall the exact years, but the Chinese industrialists in the middle ages around the year 1000 developed most of what would be rediscovered by Bessemer in the 1850s – aka Bessemer process. They then produced high quality steel getting up to as much as 35 tons in about 1060. The burocrats (whom I termed manderins, but may not have technically been those specific burocrats) decided that there was money to be had, and though various means including some of what we now call nationalisation of industry. This basically took all the steel industry and put it under the control of the Chinese governent who know how to govern, but not run a steel industry and it collapsed. So the tech was effectively abandoned.
      It is worth noting that evidence has been found of the bessemer process being discovered in the 1520s in England. However in England in about 1530s when Henry had the church lands seized this tech was lost. Specifically it was at a Monestry (Caputian I think) that they had started working out the idea. However as this idea didn’t make it into wide spread circulation – it hadn’t been perfected enough for the English chapter house to share it more broadly – I don’t consider this an abandoned tech. (I’d heard this before Stark’s book, but he does mention it there)

      Again going with Stark’s book, roads were not maintained by the Islamic rulers in North Africa because they saw no value in them. The Arab conquerors used pack animals, not wagons because they hadn’t seen an advantage to using the wagon in areas without paved roads – aka most of the Arabian penisula. The Romans btw maintained their roads by privitizing them. They sold the rights to maintain and charge tolls on the roads to locals who then would do just that. Anyhow the roads were not maintained, although they were built well, so I would not be surprised if we could find sections of them in use today. But the use of the wheel almost disapeared from Arab controlled lands because they didn’t see a use for it, or value in it.

      Farming. I’m seperating in farm – the planting of seed – from herding – the care and tending of domestic animals. I will admit to going a bit further on this one then Stark claims. But here is the background – Arabs were generally herders, not planters. Further more, when they took over areas that had been farm lands, they gave priority to their Arab brotheren over the conquered farmers and thus allowed the herds to graze anywhere, and there was no penalty for herds over running planted crops. This woudl be to the deteriment of th farmer. I suppose technically since the Arab’s weren’t using planting this wouldn’t be them abandoning it. It woudl however cause the conquered people if not to abandon, to reduce the activity as the herds were an additional ‘tax’ on production. In Spain it was such that in the 1500s the Spanish who were making a lot of money of the wool trade gave the mass migration of the sheep herds priority over all. Thus it was hard for a spanish farmer to have mass tracts of land for herding. (Again Stark).
      I extrapolated that part of Spain’s feeling towardsthe value of sheep over the lowely seed farmer is an extention from the period of Spain being occupied by Muslem culture. This could be a stretch.

      The overall point I was getting to is that for varrious reasons technology can be abandoned. I’ve given examples where they have been. Generally a useful technology is kept until it can be replaced. But because of someones short sightedness, it doesn’t have to be kept. And I only put that up as a possiblity. Saying that “it isn’t going to happen because we are in a world where you can’t rule top down” or some other thing, isn’t really realistic. To assume a top down enforcement change is the only reason we’d abandon tech is very narrow view. It is less likely to happen today, but there are natural and man made phenomina that could remove barriers.

      As to energy, I was merely pointing out what I think is probably the most fragile link in the tech maintence chain. It is being addressed with alternatives. So it is a race to see if we make the alternatives before we run out of cheep energy. The story of mankind could also be told as the story of energy usuage. Say 10K ybp, we used about 2000 kcals for food and I’mnot sure what for cooking, but that was about it. Today, I think in the West, we use much more than that a google of “average energy consuption per capita US” got me that in the US we use on average 310Million BTU. At 2000KCal is almost 8K BTU. So our consumption of energy today compared to a man living in the late stone ages is about 5 orders (100K x) as much. I choose so long ago so it would be just a man, and not have to figure out horse, steam etc. But we are built on energy consuption. So finding inexpensive energy is important. And I agree that we are looking for better ways. To assume we will find it because “progress ™” is engaging in false thinking. I think we will probably find alternatives, but I put no beleive that we will.

      If we had better history of failed Civilizations – ones that built before they suffered a collapse and land area rebuilt by others later, ex Mayans, Pyramid builders in Southern Illinois(about AD1000), Minoans, Ancient Greece (pre 1200BC) ancient Egypt (Pre 1200BC), ancient Sumeria, etc I think we’d find some technologies that they used which couldn’t be maintained when the food(aka energy) ran short and their internal collapse occured. I’m not sure that those technologies today are anything more that ‘interesting’ but we’d find that they lost them and in some cases never recovered them. A less ancient example is Roman Concrete. It was unknown how the Romans made concrete in the middle ages and Renesance. It has been rediscovered (saw a youtube video on how they did it) but when it was figured out I don’t know. Today we make it through a different method, partly because of industrialization and partly because we had to rediscover how.

    13. ACT,

      You fairly completely missed my point. Posting a 1400 word defense of absurd statements is really too much.

      Of course tech can be abandoned when no longer politically or economically viable. It’s not a religion, to be used even when useless. But the tech of roads and the wheel and farming were not forgotten. That’s just daft.

      “This basically took all the steel industry and put it under the control of the Chinese governent who know how to govern, but not run a steel industry and it collapsed”

      First, Wikipedia says the opposite. Second, a quick search shows no evidence of lost steel tech. And third, yet again — govt screwing up an industry does not mean the tech was forgotten.

    14. EDIT the 310 million BTU per capita is yearly, so teh ratio between now and our stonage man is only about 3 orders – 1000 times, not 100,000. Sorry for the error. the larger point remains, we are very energy dependant as a species and finding new usable sources is important. Either as new oil/coal fields or as new forms like LFTR

    15. Larry you ‘ve just demonstrated taht my response wasn’t needed becasue you’d already dedcided they were absurd claims. You asked for a response to that and I posted it. If you don’t understand that steel has been made in China for a very long time, but the improved methods were abadoned and the improved methods were fogotten in the 11th centruy because wiki doesn’t make a note of it, I can’t help. I also can’t help that you missed my comment of abandoned for the wheel and roads verses forgotten. We today have abandoned the use of swords not but not forgotten their use. This is abandonment is the progress of tech.

      Note on wiki’s china topics, it says they had something like this, but it is a paragraph long, I’d not expect them to have the full cycle of it’s use.

  5. Feminism is going to end as it always does:

    An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded.

    Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed. The disorders following the military takeover in 861, and the loss of the empire, had played havoc with the economy. At such a moment, it might have been expected that everyone would redouble their efforts to save the country from bankruptcy, but nothing of the kind occurred. Instead, at this moment of declining trade and financial stringency, the people of Baghdad introduced a five-day week.

    – Sir John Glubb, the Fate of Empires, page 15

  6. I like you Larry am concerned that at the moment in the West, the only winning move is to not play. Some have said that a key ingredient in making the West very powerful was the idea of marriage as monogamous (part of the Christian model of marriage). And that by doing so social preasures came to bear that made it so men and women partnered for life without divorce, etc. This gave every man a stake in the culture and the outcome as everyman now had access to a woman and could have children. This made men work out ways of courting and obtaining said women and drove the development of the West.

    It is plausible and it is important. For if men with out incentive to wives and children generally don’t produce as much as men who are married, this will slow both tech growth and economic growth. Yes I know some very famous scientists (William of occam, Copernicus) and inventors (Tesla) and probably titians of industry were single. But most were not.

    1. ACT,

      This is just a brief moment in time, a snapshot. That’s the point of this series.

      Making this problem (the gender war) into a big deal, let alone a disaster, results from the big error of forecasting: straight line extrapolation, assuming the forecaster is much smarter than everybody else — and the rest of society won’t see the same phenomenon and respond to it. That’s why doomster predictions are a dime a dozen, with one in a million proving true.

    2. If it is not a big deal, why are you writing about it?

      Snapshot in time? yes kind of. It is a changing event in our society and culture. It is as big a shift as universal sufferage. Extending the vote to those without property and even the light blub or moterized tractor. The gender wars is changing how we live, if it wasn’t, there would be no need for your writing this.

      Recognizing a problem (men who have not stake in the future) is not doom saying. It is seeing that Western Europe was able to grow because it harnessed more people by giving them a reason to work harder. Consider the reports recently that fertility rates are a better predictor of economic recessions in the US than any other forecast method. Why? because those who have a hope and belief in the future do and produce more. CEO’s and other top performers get there becasue they beleive that they can and they work at it. Is there talent? yes. But most importantly there is the belief that the desired future is available.

      And the reverse is very true for men today, the desired future seems unavailable, so they aren’t working for it. If the main point of earning money for a man is to maintain a family and have something to give his children upon his death, and the man is blocked from doing this, then why does he work? I’ve been wondering if anybody is going to give that reason, or how to get back to generally being monogamous in the West.

      btw, if you want where I’m sourcing this from, the ‘doom saying’ outcome is all over the manosphere, but I suggest you start with dalrock.wordpress.com. He has a plethora of posts about how men have lost incentive.

    3. ACT,

      I was replying to your comment, in which this leads to the fall of civilization.

      Many things are of great importance to us, but not the end of the world — and look minor or inevitable to future generations.

    4. “I was replying to your comment, in which this leads to the fall of civilization.

      Many things are of great importance to us, but not the end of the world — and look minor or inevitable to future generations.”

      I can see where you’d interpret my statement as the end of civilization… It largely depends on meanings and such. Like is the US a civilization? What does that mean to be a civilization? etc. and what do we mean by “end” Is it like Rome ending? or like a close on a chapter like the Victorian England on to Edwardian? IDK. I’m open to persuasion, but like many things, when you are in the middle of it, you can not see the beginning nor the end clearly.

  7. Larry, we sometimes forget things. For instance, we do not have all of the technology of the Romans and earlier, due to the fall of empire. Hydraulic cement took a thousand years to reinvent. True, much of that knowledge went to the Byzantines and Arabs to be ‘rediscovered’ by the Renaissance Europeans, but that’s how civilizations spiral.

    My point is not that we lose technology, but that we are no longer able to maintain or afford technology. How many aqueducts did Charlemagne build? We still have the five simple machines, and always will. But for how long will we have Google? Supersonic flight, aka the Concord, is gone. We just plain can’t afford it. How long before we can’t afford flight at all? I can drive my car across America if I want. How long before that trip can only be taken by train? By bus? By horse and wagon? Not at all? Already a car is unaffordable to many Americans. How long before it is unaffordable to all? I can buy strawberries in January from Florida and Avocados from California. How long before that is only a seasonal pleasure, if ever? We are in decline. Not just decline of empire, which might be local. But decline of the ability to sustain empire.

    We refuse to see, but there are scattering, nomadic clans growing on the fringes of our society who can’t survive by our alleged standards of living, so they are developing their own. We call them homeless, as if that’s their place of residence. Think of them as the Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, and Vikings who swept into Europe a thousand years ago and changed the demographics and created the Europe we have today. They are sweeping in now. What will they create?

    As the energy that we need to maintain our current living standard continues to get more expensive, the background radiation of the hordes will get louder. How do we accommodate that?

    Technology won’t go away. But the power to make it happen will. What then?

    Jon.

    1. Jon,

      “My point is not that we lose technology, but that we are no longer able to maintain or afford technology.”

      Those are two very different things. Not remotely the same. If you believe we will have such a large global economic collapse, take a seat with the horde of other doomsters. Not much more to see.

      “Supersonic flight, aka the Concord, is gone.”

      False. It is routinely used by the military. It was a commercial experiment. It failed because people were unwilling to pay so much for the small time saved.

      “I can drive my car across America if I want. How long before that trip can only be taken by train? By bus? By horse and wagon?”

      What are you talking about?

      “Not at all? Already a car is unaffordable to many Americans.”

      Cars have always been unaffordable by many Americans. But now car ownership is at record highs.

      The rest of your comment is equally false. Thanks for commenting.

    2. Jon,
      Agreed we lose technology. Agreed we are very energy dependant.
      But to say that we won’t figure out any solution is wrong. To say that we will is equally wrong.

      Condsider throwing dice in a casino. I can make probablity predictions on what number will show up. But the only thing I can make with certainty is that they will fall and rest on the table. Someone who says “we won’t have the needed tech” or “we will get it” is to me a person saying that the gambler in the casino when he throws the dice knows the number that is coming up. Nope, probablities. He knows the dice will land, which is basically saying events will happen. But knowing exactly what events? Nope.

      I could list of a bunch of tech that will make oil viable for atleast another century in the US. I’m personally hopeful for LFTR nuclear because I think it would be a huge improvement down stream.

      For humanity to lose tech on a massive scale like you are proposing, we’d probably need a cataclysmal event that was also short in timing. Slow moving disasters are avoidable and we’ve avoided most of them.

  8. I am interested to hear your opinions on what this “counter-revolution” is all about. What these groups of men, united in opposition to the status quo, will seek to achieve. Will they continue the work of MRA’s, seeking shared parenting equality and such? Or do you think their response will be passive-aggressive, ie. MGTOW widespread. Or perhaps overtly aggressive, such as violent demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience.

    Men are disposable. Nobody cares about men being incarcerated or killed. The government is not our ally. Nor the mainstream media. There is also the convergence of issues to consider. Race/immigration issues. Automation/job loss issues.

    Women have been empowered since the 1960’s and they have demonstrated that, in the majority, they have no interest in being wives and mothers. They want to be like men. Many have a change of heart only when it is almost too late or is too late. In all species, it is the primary job of the female to birth the next generation of the species. If the female does not do this job, the next generation is not born. Women have demonstrated that when they were offered the opportunity to avoid motherhood, or just destroy their families for stupid reasons, they took it.

    Nothing…short of a civilization collapse will return things to “the way they were”. So I try to ponder where this is going. I don’t see men rising up. More likely I see men giving up, finding alternatives.

    1. Vektor,

      “What these groups of men, united in opposition to the status quo, will seek to achieve. ”

      See the “Conclusion!” Groups of men can do little without new values.

      “short of a civilization collapse will return things to “the way they were”. ”

      Time is a one-way arrow. But that does not mean that the future will be worse than the past.

    2. “men can do little without new values.”

      I suspect it is very old values… for “there is nothing new under the Sun”….. OTOH, the values we are adopting to now are the other set of old ones. your “no excuse” post is an example of an old value – take responsiblity – verses the opposing vice being touted value today of “avoid responsiblity” and “avoid blame”

  9. Feminism leads to men dropping out because, when women rule the dating market, a man’s productivity has zero effect on his ability to attract women. I’ve expounded before on how this leads to economic collapse and civil disorder, ending in a perforce restoration of patriarchy.

    There is an another possible outcome, however. So much is automated these days — an Aldi store requires only two employees to operate! — that elites might just let men abandon the workforce, and pacify them with cheap, mass-produced food, clothing, housing, porn, drugs, and video games. Women will be the state’s breeder mares, or if they prefer pointless busywork, will be adorned with fancy titles and “employed” in vast cubicle farms where they are free to gossip and paint their nails all day.

    If crime ever becomes a problem for the elite, they can end it in two decades by castrating at birth all fatherless baby boys born in elite-funded hospitals. Eunuchs are much less prone to violence, and there’s a good chance their mothers will toss them in a dumpster and try for a girl.

    Only the elite will continue to practice something resembling patriarchy. Their average IQ will decline over time as their children revert to mean, but maintaining a fully-automated economy is much easier than inventing one, especially if robots can build robots.

    1. Two types of people are having kids nowadays: the religious and those on the dole. Those on the dole are typically low IQ single mothers having kids out-of-wedlock with various low IQ men. Half our kids are born out of wedlock these days. Obviously, a nation half-composed of low IQ bastards cannot survive because bastards raised on the dole have a vastly different outlook than those born legitimately. The overall birthrate seems to be quite low and half of that is bastards. Nations have historically died when their core demographic failed to reproduce though revival is possible if the nation is not invaded from without. When Greece was invaded by Rome when Greek reproduction was at a nadir.

      The Left Coast Leftists such as tech oligarchs believe in a universal basic income for the reasons you mentioned. One city (Vallejo) is actually trying it. Many more people out here just work for the government, which is a UBI in itself since most government employees are not actually working at their jobs (20% work hard).

      All this is to say that I don’t see it ending well for our nation. Finding alternatives to our current system in both employment, marriage, and governance is a must.

    1. dmackaymsp,

      “According to my personal experience honor is an alien concept to (((alt right))) and (((mgtow))), let alone chivalry.”

      No need to rely on your personal experience with the Red Pill community. They are quite explicit that “chivalry” as currently described is dysfunctional.

      Re: Hone — How much experience do you have with people in the “alt right” and mgtow communities? In my experience, which is considerable, most people (no all people) making those claims have little or no personal experience — their statements are ideological.

Leave a Reply