Leftism has happened before
Examining the evidence for the leftism cycle
In my papers on leftism and mutational load, I define leftism as a composite of three scales: a feminism scale, a homosexuality scale, and an anti-racism scale. It turns out these scales correlate with each other highly, and it therefore makes sense to think of there being a “general leftism” factor which lurks beneath the 3 explicit scales.
I also mention in the papers that the rise of leftism seems to be a general feature of empire decline:
The decline of asabiyyah seems to be a general feature of empire decline. We propose that the mechanism of asabiyyah decline is in fact mutational load increasing leftism in a population, potentially alongside immigrant gene flow. Further quantitative studies investigating the universality of the rise of features of leftism like feminism (decreased fertility, increased female driven sexual selection), homosexuality, and mass immigration of foreigners can further confirm this view. It may even happen in animals, especially social mammals with similar patriarchal societies to humans like lions, chimpanzees, gorillas, and wolves. An interesting, though expensive and time consuming experiment, could be to take one of these species and give them great wealth in an area over many generations. We might expect them to begin by defending their wealthy territory from outsiders. Over the generations, free from selective pressures, we would expect to see the decline of fertility and increases in female driven sexual selection, with decreases in the ability and drive for males to dominate the females. We might expect to see the ability to defend the territory weaken; gene flow from outsiders increases. And perhaps homosexual behavior would increase as well.
In this article, I would like the further qualify the claim that leftism has happened before, and that it’s associated with empire decline. The evidence in this article will be mainly verbal-historical, since the datasets needed to quantitatively confirm this do not yet exist.
Feminism has happened before
J.D. Unwin, in his book Sex and Culture, meticulously documented the claim that civilizational decline is associated with feminism.
His conclusion was that “absolute monogamy”, called in the redpill sphere “enforced monogamy”, is associated with civilizations at their peak, when they “produced the greatest social energy and the highest human culture.” He describes it as a such:
The wife is taught to submit to her husband in all things ; it is her duty to serve him and to obey him.
All instances of absolute monogamy centered around Kaufehe, purchase-marriage, where men bought their brides, save for the example of the Protestant English. “This payment [the bride-price] secured for him the exclusive possession not only of her sexual qualities but also of the products of her labour. The result was that a wife's goods, and even her life, were at her husband's disposal.” Unwin studied 80 tribes and 6 major civilizations: Rome, Babylon, Athens, Anglo-Saxons, British Empire, and Sumerians.
Invariably, after the peak came the fall, and correlated with the fall was the dissolution of absolute monogamy, i.e. the rise of feminism, i.e. the rise of female sexual selection and the fall of fertility and population.
In its full rigour this institution has never been tolerated for very long … [in all civilizations] reforms were introduced into the legal position of married women. From a position of complete subjection and legal nonentity they succeeded to the status of free and equal citizens, being able to hold property, to trade, and to contract. They were granted the power of testamentary disposition, and finally took their place in society on a complete equality with men.
Consequently, the domination of Kaufehe transitioned to the reign of Friedelehe, or consensual marriage. In other words, female sexual selection increased. In every society this happened, and in every society, this meant population downfall:
The same changes were made successively by the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and Protestant English. These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place ; the same sentiments were expressed ; the same changes were made the same results ensued … its energy decreased, and [it] faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.
Unwin comprehensively documents this process in 86 societies. It should seem that, short of quantitative confirmation, it is irrefutably true that feminism has occurred many times and each time it is associated with civilization downfall. 200 years ago, in our own civilization, marriages were certainly more arranged; one only needs to read Pride and Prejudice to see the role of the family in marriage. Women could not vote, and they could not own property except in specific circumstances. Slowly, divorce laws have widened, marriages have shifted toward the “consent” end of the spectrum; the rights of women are indistinguishable or greater than those of men, and as in tandem, fertility is down and the West is falling.
Does feminism come with anti-racism?
There is also historical evidence of feminism coming with anti-racism, as we expect from our theory. Livy describes the rise of Roman feminism, while at the same time discussing the anti-racism of Romans and their wide extensions of citizenship, which are very similar to the extensions of Western citizenship to Latinos and MENAs today.
We have further evidence of anti-racism being associated with the decline of empires.
In his seminal work Historical Dynamics, Peter Turchin invented meta-ethnic frontier theory, a theory which attempts to explain the rise and fall of empires.
It states that empires are formed by core ethnicities, which are first selected on “meta-ethnic frontiers.” These frontiers are basically areas where different races collide and fight for supremacy under Gause’s law, which states that “two species which compete for the same limited resource cannot coexist at constant population values.”
The winning race is selected for “asabiyah”, which is basically what the Third Reich had. This, of course, was the last attempt at German Empire, which had been ongoing since ethnogenesis began in the 19th century, with the main enemies being the French and the slavs.
Here is a good description:
Asabiya is a concept from the writings of Ibn Khaldun which Turchin defines as “the capacity for collective action” of a society. The Metaethnic Frontier theory is meant to incorporate asabiya as a key factor in predicting the dynamics of imperial agrarian societies - how they grow, shrink, and begin. Turchin posits that multi-level selection can help us identify the dynamics of asabiya in groups. He follows by noting three ways in which the logic of multi-level selection can be relevant in understanding change in “collective solidarity”: intergroup conflict, population and resource constraints, and ethnic boundaries.
For small groups, intergroup conflict can increase asabiya as people need to band together to survive as a group. Conversely (again for small groups), a large population with respect to available resources can decrease asabiya as individuals compete for limited resources. For larger groups, Turchin proposes that ethnic boundries can influence how bands of small groups with moderate ethnic differences can band together against people who are even more “ethnically distanced” - more “Other”. In this process of small groups banding together against peoples more Other than themselves, they can form what Turchin calls a Metaethnic Frontier … Turchin notes that the this ethnic boundry dynamic which generates asabiya in a large group (composed of smaller groups) is weak because as the size of the group grows larger, the central regions are less exposed to intergroup conflict and asabiya decreases, leading to greater internal division. Finally, Turchin notes that all three aforementioned possiblities occur at regions which constitute imperial and metaethnic frontiers (imperial and metaethnic frontiers often coincide, he notes). Its is in these regions of intense dynamics where asabiya is forged which are most prone to ethnogenesis.
Of course, the British Empire and the United States also had asabiyah, until decolonialization and Civil Rights. Rome had asabiyah, until mass immigration and citizenship extension to the MENA masses. The British Empire emerged from the English out of protracted meta-ethnic conflicts with the French, Spanish, Irish, and Scottish, the US emerged out of a meta-ethnic frontier with Amerindians, and Rome in its early days was pitted into intense struggle with the Etruscans, and afterwards the Carthaginians.
The evidence for this is more than verbal. Turchin has collected quantitative evidence. In Historical Dynamics, he samples 100 different societies post 0 AD and finds the following:
In 2009 this was replicated with data from Asia.
There is, then, most certainly a strong association between racial conflict and proceeding empire formation.
We know now that asabiyah is essential in-group racial preference, and that mutational load decays this preference in absence of appropriate meta-ethnic selection pressures. Thus, when empires peak, their decline is associated with a decline in asabiyah, aka in-group racism.
It follows from J.D. Unwin’s work that empires peak with absolute monogamy (usually Kaufehe), and his in-group racism (asabiyah), and as they fall, feminism increases and in-group racism decrease.
The gay question
There is comparatively less evidence (in general, history is a poor field wrought with static thinking, where most writers describe “Babylon” as an entity with unchanging practices for its whole existence, for instance) on homosexuality and empire decline, although from mutational load evidence we may infer that homosexuality does indeed come with empire decline. This is confirmed so far only in two case-studies, those of Rome and Athens.
Very simply, in Athens, Solon gave laws which would execute pederasts under specific circumstances. There is little evidence that pederasty was widespread from this period.
Starting during their apex in wealth, and the beginning of their decline, in the 300s BC, we find widespread evidence of pederasty. Myths about pederasty in before-eras began to spread as well; for example, the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus was, lacking an textual evidence, first interpreted as a gay relationship in this time period. Solon’s laws had been dead for generations, and it was a struggle to keep blatant homosexual prostitutes from holding power in the Senate through laws technically still on the books. We find thus that Athens started strong, with Kaufehe and low levels of gayness, and transitioned to a Friedelehe regime per Unwin, expanded citizenship and ultimately succumbed to Rome,
In Rome, studying the biographies of the emperors is enough. In the Roman Republic, Athens was considered excessively homosexual, but by the time of the emperors Athens was very conservative in this regard. Emperors began to look high mutational load, with poorly defined facial features and high asymmetry, not looking out of place in a modern American Walmart.
Several emperors were zoo-philes (furries) or cross-dressers (transsexuals).
The Roman example is strong enough. Look at people 100 years ago, and look at them now, and see the differences in facial features (soon I hope to do a study on this with machine learning). A trained eye can see that the Roman emperors began to look the same way. The Romans also empowered their women, they also accepted mass immigration and citizenship extension, and they also became extremely homosexual. All of this happened without a university system, the Frankfurt school, or the printing press. Sorry, idea people!
Conclusion
Given our data on mutational load, and our knowledge that evolution is fast, what is likely going on here is as follows:
Meta-ethnic frontiers select for Kaufehe, racism, and warriorism (high masculinity, low feminine homosexuality).
Selected people create great civilizations which are patriarchal, racist, and good at conquering, per their genes.
Success and peace reduces selection pressure. Mutational pressure causes transition to Friedelehe (feminism), anti-racism (low asabiyah), and effeminacy (homosexuality).
The degenerated race loses their empire due to their weakness. Go back to step 1.
Why might meta-ethnic frontiers select for these all at once? Perhaps they are genetically correlated. It is easy to imagine a “general masculinity” leading to racism, patriarchy, and low rates of effeminacy, and this general masculinity being selected for by inter-racial conflict where better warriors who kill more of the other tribe breed more. Additionally, without genetic correlation, it’s easy to imagine per the preceding example why these 3 domains might be selected for.
Either way, the historical record is mostly clear here. Leftism definitely seems to have happened before, and is happening again. We know it’s genetic, and it’s a historical pattern associated with empire decline. It’s not hard to imagine that in the next 100 to 300 years, the West will be overrun by now-superior peoples, probably MENAs and/or Latinos, just like Rome, if genetic interventions are not attempted.
In a way, the West has the chance to create a 10,000 year peace, perhaps even longer, if it would engage in appropriate genetic hygiene practices. Specifically, my research says that encouraging young adult breeding and a correlation of about 0.30 of conservatism with fertility would be enough. This could be done with some wealth redistribution programs and a restructuring of the education system.
We Bronskimaxxing out here.
Did they not do the experiment - with mice? Multiple generations living in a Mouse Paradise ("wealthy"), and the mice turned effeminate, gay, and lazy