Gynaecocracy, the feminist collective, will fail

Spread the love

Originally posted 2018-02-18 08:58:12.

Why is it that matriarchy, which is so successful at the micro-social scale, as we see in traditional communities across the world, is not de facto the governing system at a global level? If the reason were simply that ‘men use violence to impose control’ as feminists would have it, then matriarchy simply would not work on the micro scale, any more than it does on the global one.  So what is happening? How is it that gynaecocracy, which is the matriarchy scaled up to national or global level, is not ruling us now?

I have investigated thoroughly the way that Western culture has evolved. The impetus, first towards sedentary living, then to settlement and ultimately to civilisation (city-based culture) came from women. Women need to protect and provide for their children and this becomes progressively easier as populations become more settled. That this is a highly successful strategy is clear from the population figures: 10,000 years ago, the point at which it is generally taken that widespread settlement began to occur in human populations, there were between 1 and 10 million humans. (A) Today there are over seven billion of us.




This dramatic increase in population, which was already enough to trouble Malthus, writing in 1798, was accelerated by the Industrial Revolution, agrarian reform and of course modern medicine. But these advances were the result of our civilised lifestyle, which provides for the kind of specialisation that is required to do the research fundamental to them.

In other words, settlement, especially living in cities, has been a hugely successful strategy for us, and it was almost certainly provoked by women and their need to better protect their children. And indeed, the initial cities were goddess-cities which worshipped a female deity. Inanna, the great goddess of Sumer, whose cult centre was the leading city of Uruk (Biblical Erech) was perhaps the most dynamic of those whose stories have come down to us.

There is strong evidence that early human cities were organised on the matriarchal model we still find in villages in, for instance, SE Asia (see Balante.) The question that remains is, ‘What happened’? Why did the model change and men, who hitherto had taken little interest in domestic matters, become so politically dominant?

The argument that ‘men just took power because they could’ does not stand up to scrutiny. If that were the case, why would there be matriarchal cultures at all? Why would human society ever be organised in a matriarchal structure — yet it is, and we can show this. So there must be another reason.

Could it be that gynaecocracy, which is the matriarchy scaled up to national or even global level, simply doesn’t work? In if that is the case, do we have examples to support it?

Vladislav Surkov

Vladislav Surkov

Yesterday, Russia Today reprinted an article by Russian thinker called Vladislav Surkov, an enigmatic Russian politician whom some have labelled an eminence gris in Russian politics. His piece, which I have taken the liberty of reproducing in full below, makes interesting reading.

In essence, Surkov proposes that as societies decline they tend to become matriarchal. For example, he says

‘Political systems turn to women when they are exhausted from periods of intense growth or when they reach the final, terminal stage in their development. This is why, although not all female rulers look like nurses, their manner of ruling is very similar to that of a nurse taking care of a sick patient – futile attempts to help in a helpless situation.’

At first glance, Surkov’s assertion looks preposterous, but that is only because we in the West have been conditioned over years of advancing gynaecocracy to believe that it is natural and right that women should rule over men. Female privilege, which is what prevents women from being attacked by men — when those same men would attack other men in the same circumstances — has become the great unmentionable of our time; indeed, it is proposed that males are privileged over women. That this idea has been so well inculcated in our thinking is clear from the simple fact that most readers will not find that statement shocking. In all areas of Western life today, women are favoured over men.

We only need to look at the ‘Me Too’ witch-hunt campaign, or the fact that a woman who accuses a man of sexual assault will have her name kept secret, even if her claim is unproven or, worse, turns out to be malicious, while the accused, even when proven not guilty, is publicly shamed and mired by the court of public opinion, egged on by feminists with a claim of ‘no smoke without fire’ — the most cowardly argument of all.

‘Feminine democracy’ — which is not, really

Women are  interested in what Surkov calls ‘feminine democracy’ in which everyone is free as long as they abide by the rules of the hive. Freedom of speech, the greatest single achievement of our culture, has already been cast aside; one may say what one wishes as long as it hurts no-one else’s feelings. Since almost any statement is bound to upset someone, the very concept of ‘hate speech’ — as distinct from any other kind of speech — is a direct attack on freedom itself.

Surkov goes on to give examples of what happens when society succumbs to matriarchy. He cites the falls of Sparta and Rome; but there are many other examples, not least Uruk itself. I take issue with him, however, in his sidestepping of the most obvious and recent examples.

Communism and feminism

No reader of Marx or Engels can fail to notice the similarity of their thought to that of modern feminists like Steinem or Greer. And that, of course, is  because the ‘Second Wave’ feminists largely adopted Marxist thinking and adapted it to suit women. But where Marx sees a class struggle — while arguing that women particularly suffer from the consequences of it — feminists see class as secondary to sex. Feminism is quintessentially sexist; it promotes the idea that ‘women = good, men = bad’; but the irony of this is lost on the political cadres who lead it.

In part this is because modern feminism arose in the United Sates in the 1960s, where Communism was a particularly hard sell. A culture wherein workers were the wealthiest in the world was not fertile breeding ground for Socialist politics and, indeed, the Socialist thinkers who had been active prior to World War 2 had largely gone underground, forsaking the broader class struggle for those of particular groups.

Identity Politics

This led, of course, to the absurdity of ‘Identity Politics’ in which a millionaire Hollywood film star (female) is regarded as ‘more oppressed’ than a homeless, penniless ex-soldier (male).

However, despite its departure along the lines of Identity Politics, the underlying principles of feminism are identical to those of Marx. The ‘female collective’ is just the socialist State and above all other things it posits that the group is always more important than the individual. No individual may be permitted to speak against a group, at least, not one which is protected under Identity Politics. At the same time, the basic foundation of Western democracy and our legal systems, the individual and his rights, is replaced by ‘social justice’ for groups.

Communist dictatorships and feminine dictatorships are the same.

The fact that feminism and Marxism are essentially the same thing should have led Surkov to state that what happened in those states where the Communist experiment was tried, will also happen if the feminist experiment — called by Surkov the ‘matriarchy’ but in fact the gynaecocracy, since its leaders do not value motherhood — be allowed to take place. Just like the Communist dictatorships of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and so many others could brook no criticism, nor can modern feminism.

It is axiomatic that feminists and their fellow-travellers will first — before they have total control — attack, suppress and silence all dissenting voices, as they are doing right now, and, in the sad event of their experiment being carried out, will ‘re-educate’, imprison and ultimately kill those who refuse to stop criticising them, once they do have power. Lest you doubt me, look at the witch-hunts being carried out right now, in universities — no longer institutions of free thinking but hive-mind conditioning centres, where anyone who seems reluctant to toe the party line is required to take ‘inclusivity training’ — voir political brainwashing. Recidivist free thinkers are hounded from office, as was attempted with Dr Jordan Peterson and those who dare to present an opposing voice are attacked and prevented from speaking.

Collectivism does not work on the larger scale and that is why gynaecocracy will fail

We know from recent experiment that collectivism does not work and the fact that feminism carries a different banner from Communism (sometimes) should not be allowed to conceal the basic similarities.

We also know why the collectivist experiments under the banner of Communism failed; they were simply incapable of keeping up with the pace of development in the free world. Capitalism remains the most successful economic system humans have ever practised.

It lifted more people out of poverty, in a shorter time, than has ever been achieved before. For comparison, living standards across the Communist collective plummeted until either the entire structure of State collapsed, as in the USSR, or the collective leaders wisely allowed capitalism to flourish within their borders, as in China and Vietnam. We know that collectivism does not work, and we know why. It does not fail because of the individuals who lead it but because the underlying system — whether Communist dictatorship or gynaecocracy — is fundamentally flawed and incapable of responding to the needs of large numbers of people living in urban environments.

Only Capitalism  has the responsiveness that the world needs today. The very last thing we need is the gynaecocracy, another experiment in collectivism that is doomed to fail as every single other such experiment has done.

The gynaecocracy, the feminist collective, if we allow it to come into being, will implode, as did the USSR; the only question is ‘How many will it disenfranchise, ‘re-educate’, imprison in new Gulags or kill, before it does so? And would it not be better to nip it in the bud now, before it completes its intended take-over of society?




A Valentine Card in Scarlet

Vladislav Surkov

Boris Grebenshchikov(1) said in the early 2000s that the Age of Aquarius(2) has arrived, signalling imminent restoration of matriarchy.

Should decision-makers listen to someone that is neither a political scientist, a sociologist, or an economist? Should political strategists listen to a magician, a master of the occult, a visionary – because that is what Boris is? I say, by all means, yes. If you have any doubts, look at what is going on in the West right now. Matriarchy is clearly on the rise. It is girl power time.

The number of female heads of government, ministers and mayors in very influential countries is constantly growing. More and more, we are surrounded by women who do business, women who administrate, women who are in charge of something or somebody, or women who are simply extremely aggressive for no particular reason.

Hollywood films and TV shows, the modern-day oracles defining the hierarchical structure, downgrade men and uphold women. You don’t see many male bosses these days; it’s lady bosses all over the place. Strong men are portrayed as uncouth and thick-headed, needing smart women to wisely guide them. You see many self-confident moms and grandmas acting as police chiefs, heads of special units or sometimes even intelligence agencies. The last Jedi in the latest instalment of the Star Wars saga is also female, naturally.

The current crusade against sexual harassment is probably just the beginning. Next, women will want to turn the tables – now it is their turn to harass men. After all, in order to have sex, someone has to make the first move. This is better than no sex at all.

We all know that British researchers always stay abreast of the latest trends, and this time was no exception. A genetics professor from the University of Kent published an article (4) earlier this year, claiming that the male Y chromosome, which carries the SRY gene (responsible for the development of male sex organs), will soon disappear as part of the evolutionary process. The set of genes responsible for producing males will be dropped from the genome. Basically, this is a nice way of calling all males degenerates.

So, what’s going on? Really, what’s going on? Remember how James Brown sang (and girls echoed him), “This is a man’s world?” In fact, 50 Cent sang the very same words just recently.

Indeed, the world as we know it was invented and shaped by man. It’s not perfect, but it is what it is. Moses and Buddha, Shakespeare and Nabokov, Newton and Mandelbrot, Saladin and Zhukov, Korolev and Oppenheimer, Zvorykin and Jobs, the Beatles and Brin – they are the ones who have shaped the world around us. So, why are women taking over this man’s world? And, more importantly, what is their goal?

There is a theory that does not get much publicity (as this would be clearly a wrong time for it), yet it is quite widespread. It says that the elevation of women (as well as members of other non-masculine genders who always join women in this elevation) is a sign of decline.

It’s hard to tell how wrong this theory is. On the one hand, it seems that it can be easily refuted. On the other hand, its proponents are stubborn and think they have substantial arguments and examples.

Aristotle, for example, claimed that Sparta fell due to the increased influence of the “weaker” sex. The number of males decreased dramatically because of constant wars. Large parts of land and power that they come with, were passed into the hands of widows. Instead of mourning their late husbands, these widows engaged in usury, which would be unthinkable in earlier times, given the ethical and economic norms of the once ascetic nation. This was the end of Sparta.

When Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, embraced Christianity, it was the end of the Roman Empire. The emperor soon gave Helena the title of Augusta and adopted the teaching of Jesus, as conveyed by Saul, as the state religion – the teaching that denied the cult of the emperor and thus undermined the very foundation of the state. Rome lost its status as the ruling city and the Empire moved east to Byzantium, where it agonized for a few more centuries as an imitation empire, while the real Rome, the Rome of Scipios and Caesars, was irrevocably lost.

When Catherine de’ Medici intervened in the rule of her three sons, who were French kings, the House of Valois collapsed.

Elizabeth I was the last monarch in the Tudor dynasty, replaced with the son of Mary Stuart, who she had executed. Under Queen Victoria, the British monarchy lost whatever power it had left and switched to purely ceremonial functions.

Many historians agree that the so-called ‘Sultanate of Women’ (a period of about 100 years when state affairs were dominated by concubines, wives and mothers of sultans), was the turning point and the beginning of the fall of the Sublime Porte.

In Russia, the 18th century, also known as the Century of Women, as illustrious as it was, did irreparable damage to the absolute monarchy. The age of Anne, Elizabeth and the two Catherines was marked by a series of palace coups, the rise of szlachta (3) and favouritism. On top of all that, something unthinkable happened: a monarch was killed, and not just one, but two monarchs (male, of course), which resulted in desacralization of monarchy.

While a few “czars” had been killed before, this only happened during the ‘Time of Troubles’ and only to “false” czars, those not from the Rurik or Romanov dynasties: Feodor Godunov, False Dmitry and False False Dmitry (4). The assassinations of Peter III and Ivan VI, on the other hand, were truly revolutionary events that paved the way for everything that came later: Count Pahlen (5), Decembrists (6), Narodnaya Volya (7) and, eventually, Bolsheviks.

The strengthening of women’s influence is not the cause, of course; it is a symptom, a manifestation of decadence. It was not Alexandra Feodorovna (8) who destroyed the Russian Empire, and it was not Raisa Gorbacheva (9) who destroyed the Soviet Union. However, their names invariably come up in the conversation whenever people talk about the last days of the Empire or the last days of the Union.


Political systems turn to women when they are exhausted from periods of intense growth or when they reach the final, terminal stage in their development. This is why, although not all female rulers look like nurses, their manner of ruling is very similar to that of a nurse taking care of a sick patient – futile attempts to help in a helpless situation.

Liberal democracy is currently being replaced with matriarchal democracy in the West. Adopting a softer stance and disguising itself, feminism spreads far and wide, no longer being limited to radical sects. Lady-pleasing is perhaps the most effective kind of populism today for those who want to make a political career. All signs point to an imminent decline of Europe (actually, Euramerica).

And what do men do in this situation? Some have signed up to serve their new lady bosses, saying things like: “Count me a feminist.” Others moan and wait. Still others keep drinking and making merry like they used to during the previous Age of Pisces (10).

It’s just a small number of the chosen ones (or cast-outs) who know that a decline is followed by a rise. They don’t look at the things that are coming down. They seek to understand what is on the rise. They are engaged in real men’s work: they invent and engineer a new reality while their women administrate the old one. They have handed over to women what is no longer of any use to them – the steering wheel of the obsolete political machine, which is broken and can’t go any further.

Nobody wants to assume power without understanding first what went wrong – nobody except women. This is why gentlemen generously let their ladies deal with Brexit, the migrant crisis, the lack of social mobility, the bubble economy, volatile markets, stagnant median income, convoluted multipolarity and unlimited militarization.

Women have climbed to the top tiers of the political ladder when it is about to collapse. Men have gone down, and are busy doing something at lower levels. In the face of matriarchy, they went underground to regroup and rethink their values. They are creating things for the future, things that are unheard of, like the digital economy without people (whose humanlessness makes it inhumane) – or innovative weapons of a thousand megadeaths – or turning hackers and other online criminals into the ruling class (just like robbers and raiders formed the aristocracy in the pre-Internet world, and the American robber barons evolved into the contemporary capitalist elite) – or a religious teaching produced and preached by artificial intelligence – or a global state based on total control combined with mass-produced fake freedoms.

In a word, everything will be once again man-made tomorrow. Made by men. Which means, it may not be good but it will definitely not be boring.

In every family, there are times when the husband is at a loss because of some difficulty. Having spent some time arguing with his wife, with the children and finally with himself, and not getting anywhere, the husband withdraws to another room. For a period of time, there is matriarchy. The husband smokes a cigarette and does thirty push-ups to let off some steam, and then comes to the table for dinner as if nothing ever happened. Then, the proper order is restored and life goes back to normal. Yet, something is forever changed from this point on.

The same thing is happening on a global scale today. Humankind has hit the wall. Moms are taking care of the house. But dads will later come back with a new world, with new toys for everybody.

  1. S. Guarded by God, our fatherland has been affected by feminism to a very slight degree. There is no particular friction between the sexes. I’m not sure what this means, whether we are ahead of the rest of the world or we are lagging behind. This ambiguity shows the only strategy available to us should women revolt. It is the strategy of Cunctator (11) and Barclay de Tolly (12). Take your time. Manoeuvre. When attacked, do not engage in a fight. Oh, and one more thing – love your opponent.

1) Iconic Russian songwriter and singer famous for philosophical lyrics of his songs

2) Hypothetical time period signified by a profound shift in society under an influence of magical cosmic powers

3) Polish nobility class. Their craving for privileges is considered in Russian historiography as a major cause for the decline of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its eventual partitioning by the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Habsburg Monarchy. Szlachta was a source of constant turmoil in Russia.

4) The death of Tsar Boris Godunov left Russia in political turmoil fuelled by rumours that Godunov had usurped the throne after ordering the assassination of the rightful heir, Dmitry, son of Tsar Ivan IV. Godunov’s son Fedor was killed by supporters of False Dmitry I, a person claiming to be the dead prince having miraculously survived. A string of other pretenders claiming to be the same person followed (and were consequentially killed).

5) Peter Ludwig von der Pahlen, the ringleader of a palace coup against Emperor Paul of Russia, which ended in regicide.

6) The perpetrators of a military coup in 1825, which caused a monumental impact on Russia, despite its failure to impose a constitutional monarchy.

7) A Russian leftist revolutionary organization, which operated in 1879–1887 and used terrorist tactics against the government.

8) The wife of Nicolas II, the last Emperor of Russia.

9) The wife of Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of Soviet Union.

10) A period coming before the Age of Aquarius, according to some astrologists.

11) Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, Roman general famous for the strategy he used to wear down the army of Hannibal Barca during the Second Punic War.

12) Russian military commander during Napoleonic Wars, who used the attrition strategy against invading French troops


A Pala, M, et al.(2012). “Mitochondrial DNA signals of late glacial recolonization of Europe from near eastern refugia”. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 90: 915–24. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.04.003. PMC 3376494. PMID 22560092.


Leave a Reply