Rome lost about 32,000 at Trebia, and around 24,00o0 or so at Lake Trasimene, and around 47,000 at Cannae. And still fought and won. Hannibal, a general greater than Alexander, pushed Rome to the very edge, but Rome still won, and won because of the Fasces lesson. That all were greater than one. Even Hannibal. Losing about 103,000 men, Rome was still able to get small farmer after small farmer to fight. For themselves. Together, as one.

The true inheritor of the lesson of the Fasces was America. Reeds bundled together, by custom, brotherhood, language, values, customs, and their own station in life. The Fascists, Italy, Germany, and Japan, were Big Men like Hannibal, brilliant and well armed, with able soldiers, sailors, and airmen, but hampered by a system of Emperorship. They were like Hannibal — Brilliant but doomed against the lesson of the reeds.

Germany may have been a powerful country but their strategic situation (surrounded by enemies) wasn’t right for the sort of aggressive military expansion they wanted to do; they had to fight a two-front war. The Russians were just as nasty and they managed to get and hold a large empire for another 50 years.

If Germany had been the democracy and America had been the fascist power we would have been hearing about the weakness of democracy for the past seventy years now.

And not co-incidentally why Western Men were greater than other men — they had the love of one woman which was worth more than the passing affections of the Seraglio combined. Jung not being American gets some things right, with insights that natives miss, but is often spectacularly wrong on others.

I disagree with Jung’s diagnosis, particularly regarding female independence. Western strength is founded upon it. But “with great power comes great responsibility” and women have evaded responsibility at every turn since Suffrage. Rachel Jackson by all accounts was a strong and independent woman, and even married to another before she married Jackson (allegations of the shoe-leather divorce plagued her). Clearly she was Jackson’s strength. This was typical for Western leaders up to about say, 1960 or so.

But an equal mate MUST shoulder her responsibility. Her kids must come first, over her sexual satisfaction, something lacking in the Lohs and Ehrenreichs. Her husband must be as important to her as she is to herself (and vice-versa). TWO are stronger than one, just as the lesson of the fasces gave Rome its strength, and foundered when it was forgotten. [And misunderstood totally by the Fascists later.]

Women can and should have their own careers, education, independence, and other things that make them a man’s equal. But with all that comes words that are foreign to the vocabulary of Modern Women (but not to those born before 1950): Duty, loyalty, fidelity, family, responsibility, and yes, love. Not the burning passion of eternally teen-age “Twilight” or “Buffy” vampires, which is literally the horrifying desire to be a slave, but the mature love of people understanding mortality and the fragility of human existence.

Game is needed, but it is needed because Women abandoned responsibility in the West. The West is mortally weakened because of it.

With women being hypergamous and no female structure in place to curb that innate desire, we’ve got disaster. It’s no accident that one of Roissy’s tenets is urban anonymity. It’s a bit harder to drag home the Alpha of the week if the neighbors, the boss, the parents, and so on see and disapprove.

The desire to be “dominated” is basically, a total abdication of female responsibility, wanting the man in the driver’s seat 24/7 for stimulation and excitement. Like he’s a living video game. Which pretty much explains female attitudes towards men.

Even the worst salesmen have to prequalify their prospects. Identify the low hanging fruit and start there …

In Ethiopia.