To Be Against Civilization Is To Be Feminist

What is civilization?  There are many definitions of “civilization”, but IMO the most important definition of civilization is controlling female behavior, all of which acts against civilization. Civilization was created as soon as ways of controlling female behavior were developed.  Before civilization men had to constantly deal with female behavior so they never had the time to develop science, technology, etc.  When female behavior was put under control, then men didn’t have to spend so much time worry about women.  Men could spend time inventing agriculture and later other forms of science and technology.  Keeping women and their destructive behavior under control is the key to civilization.

So much of feminism is a screed against civilization, science, and technology.  Feminists have called Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica a rape manual.  Feminists hate the technology industry and have attacked technology in general as male rape of the natural world and/or the enforcement of patriarchy over nature.  Feminists know unconciously that civilization is the greatest threat to the power of women.  Civilization was developed by men, not women.  Women are only along for the ride because sex and babies can’t happen without them (for now).  Every advancement in science and technology is a threat to women.  Every advancement in science and technology brings up a step closer to freeing men from needing women.  For feminists to totally restore female power, they have to completely undo the last 6000 years of civilization, science, and technology.

This means that anyone is who wants to undo civilization is objectively a feminist (even if such a person does not consider themselves a feminist).  The Paleo-Game Cult is against civilization too.  The Paleo-Game Cult believes in the paleo diet because they think that diet is what humans ate before civilization.  (They are wrong about that, but their belief is what matters here.)  They believe in game because they believe game represents a pre-civilization masculinity.  (They are wrong about this too.)  They believe in conspiracy theory because if conspiracy theory was correct then the only way to destroy the conspiracy would be to destroy civilization.  They are obsessed with “collapse porn” and complusive doomsaying constantly making predictions that civilization will end because they want civilization to end.  They believe in white supremacism because before civilization they wouldn’t have to deal with people of other races.  They demand that their ideas be exempt from scientific inquiry because science and civilization are practically one and the same.

The Paleo-Game Cult has explictily stated their opposition to civilization as Hawaiian Fat Blob says here.

I agree. “Civilization” is really the domestication of humanity. Once you understand this, you are then free to make a choice: are you going to live life like a lap dog…or more like a free range wolf? I know which end of that spectrum I prefer.

The Paleo-Game Cult want to regress into animals.  They literally want to to revert back into chimpanzees.  This would completely restore female power so the Paleo-Game Cult is objectively feminist just like the feminists.

Do you want to live like a lap dog or a wolf?  They can only think in terms of being animals.  I, like most people, want to be a human being, not an animal.  Unlike the Paleo-Game Cult I love civilization.  I love science and technology and all of the benefits they provide.  I like sanitation, hospitals, computers, etc.  The Paleo-Game Cult like the feminists are free to reject civilization if they wish.  However, both groups are hypocrites about it.  They reject civilization, but use its tools.  If they were consitent they would get off the internet and move to some remote area with no civilization.  If the feminists and the Paleo-Game Cult would leave civilization, then the rest of us could get on with the rest of our lives.

Here we have another example of how the “blue pill” (feminists) and the “red pill” (the Paleo-Game Cult) are both feminists.  Only the black pill stands in opposition to the feminism of both groups.  Only the black pill believes in civilization.

55 responses to “To Be Against Civilization Is To Be Feminist

  1. Pingback: To Be Against Civilization Is To Be Feminist | The Black Pill

  2. Good points here. I would argue that not all aspects of civilization are good (pollution, atomization, etc.) but the good sides far outweigh the bad. It’s a major reason we’re alive- and why we’re even communicating.

    It’s no accident that feminists consider the development of agriculture oppressive to women. A lot of what feminists consider “oppressive” is really just a control on feral behavior.

    Feminism and especially enviro-feminism is insane. Such ideologies have no place in a modern society. Thanks for pointing out feminism as an ultimately reactionary ideology.

  3. Being anti-civilization has a long and storied pedigree in the West, though.

    It is has long seemed to me that Game is part of the anti-civilization trend that has been around in the West since at least the times of Roussau. They glorify the attributes of the brute, the criminal, and even though many of them are smart and educated, they are constantly denigrating intelligence, refinement, being civil and civilized. Game is simply a glorification of the lowest type of man – the most primitive, the least intelligent. They are not just anti-nerd, they are anti-intelligence and refinement and sophistication, that is the subtext of the constant worship of the criminal, the brawny bouncer, the dumb DJ – these are their heros. It is not just because guys like this are physically capable – James Bond is physical, but also smart, classy, stylish, and civilized. The *Bond type* of man is barely noticed by the Game crowd – no, it is the explicitly primitive and brutish that they admire, not just the confident and physically strong. So it is not merely about confidence and strength. They revel in brutishness – read roissys loving, worshipful descriptions of how women supposedly get aroused by the most brutish and primitive of men. Supposedly he is condemning this, but his excited, breathless prose makes clear that he revels in it. The worship of the primitive is huge with roissy and his noisy horde, sometimes but not always preceded by pretended regret that things should be this way.

    But this kind of thing has been a current in Western culture for a very long time, and Game and Paleo is just the most recent manifestation of it. What is at the bottom of it I wonder? Why have some educated and intelligent – *civilized* – people in the West for the past couple centuries become worshippers of the primitive?

    This attitude is notably absent in Asia. Asia is like the mainstream West in the 18th and 19th century. The stylish, well dressed, refined, sophisticated man is the ideal – the brutish, primitive man is widely despised. He is not seen as more virile or masculine. He is just seen as less developed and laughed at. Refinement is valued for itself. So is intellect. So is class and style. This used to be the case in the mainstream West, but some highly intelligent men even in those periods in the West were fetishizing the primitive. So what is at the bottom of it all?

    • I think part of it is also that these people pride themselves as being able to see the *dark* truths about reality and the world – roissy actually calls himself the dark lord and his blog the place where pretty lies perish.

      They consider themselves *tough minded* and un-deluded, etc. They get pleasure from seeing the world this way, which creates an emotional incentive to create situations that dont actually exist that confirm their dark state of mind. Its like liberals who scan the world for places where they can invest their pity and sensitivity, even if such places dont actually exist.

      All this is very good, but it is a very adolescent state of mind to get stuck in permanently. When you emerge from a protected childhood and begin to see that adults lied to you and made the world look roiser than it is, your sense of shock and outrage makes you into a confirmed cynic – then you grow up a bit, get a sense of perspective, and realize that you overreacted. Yes, a moderate amount of cynicism is good, but the bleak vision of the world you had in your adolescence is just as untenable as the rosy vision that preceded it.

      You grow up into a sense of balance and perspective – but some people get stuck in this kind of adolescent sense of outrage that the world is not as rosy as you thought in your childhood.

    • A commenter here earlier talked about Roissy’s obsession with women who love serial killers.

      Apparently Roissy was pointing how some serial killers have fan clubs and get love letters. He apparently used that as evidence of women’s primal attraction to brutes.

      This commenter pointed out to Roissy that the worlds fattest women also have clubs, and there are men who fetishize absurdly obese women. He asked Roissy if By the same logic, we could say that “men have a primal attraction toward obesity”.

      He of course got ip-banned from Roissy’s blog.

        • Well, there’s a difference between “badboys” and outright brutes.

          It is true that a huge percentage of women sleep with, or date “badboys” and “jerks” and “assholes”.

          Women aren’t attracted to them because they’re assholes though. The reason these men are more successful is because they just hit on, and ask out more women, that’s it. They don’t give a fuck if they get rejected 200 times a night to get one chick.

          1)So we have the first fallacy, confusing correlation with causation (the average jerk doesn’t “cause” more attraction in women, he just tries harder)

          2) The thing that Roissyites get wrong second is that they conflate the average asshole with an actual serial killer, drug dealer, gang banger, as if they were even on the same spectrum…

          So that’s how you get this perverted worldview where he quotes stories of serial killers getting love-letters as “evidence” that being an asshole “causes” attraction on a primal level to some sort of cavemannish brute.

        • Let me also explain why this absurd theory is very attractive to some men. You get to blame an imaginary “fucked up female wiring” instead of looking at yourself.

          I personally don’t like the fact that men are expected to take a ton of rejection, go through a lot of double binds and push through rejection to get laid… So don’t misunderstand when I say the following.

          It is easier to adopt an absurd “women are wired for badboys” theory, than it is to accept that if you want to get laid more you need to handle rejection better. It’s also easier than looking in the rear view mirror and seeing that it’s been 6 months since you last got rejected, whereas the “badboy” gets 6 rejections a week.

          There is no evidence that 10 men making polite escalations (of equal persistence) and 10 jerks making 10 impolite escalations, that the jerks will get more results.

          It’s a lot easier to tell yourself that women have fucked up wiring, then to admit that you don’t persist, give up too soon etc etc**

          *-> Again, don’t misunderstand, I am not saying it’s good that in society we have it so that getting laid required dogged persistance. I’m just saying that’s what works when it comes to volume for average-looking men of average status.

          **-> Obviously one could say that women’s insistance on having the men persist and handle rejection is one way in which women are wired for badboys. That might be true if it were only badboys who can do this. Any man can learn to persist, and handle rejection and shit. And learning to not take shit from women or not take rejection personally does not put you on the same spectrum as a serial killer… I’m sorry that’s absurd.

        • You get to blame an imaginary “fucked up female wiring” instead of looking at yourself.

          Are you seriously going to deny that female wiring is fucked up? Female wiring is fucked up outside of anything having to so with dating and sex, so it’s also fucked up when it comes to dating and sex too. You can’t say that this is all a problem of “you’re pissed that you don’t get laid” because the problem exists when the problem of female fucked up wiring exists outside of getting laid.

          It’s a lot easier to tell yourself that women have fucked up wiring, then to admit that you don’t persist, give up too soon etc etc**

          This is white knighting and borderline MDAD. This is why all of my writing on the MDAD is important. We can’t talk about the problems of female behavior and female fucked up wiring without it turning into “you’re just pissed you can’t get laid.

          What is true that women hate 80% of the male population give or take (that is the non-alpha porition of the male population). This doesn’t imply that women are necessarily attracted to serial killers, but that something is fundamentally wrong with women.

      • That’s a fair point, however I’m willing to bet Joran van der Sloot and Jeff Dahmer got a whole lot more fan mail from women than Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg ever did. I think that his larger point – that women’s biologically wired mating instincts are dysfunctional in the modern world stands.

        • That’s a fair point, however I’m willing to bet Joran van der Sloot and Jeff Dahmer got a whole lot more fan mail from women than Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg ever did

          Link?

        • That’s a fair point, however I’m willing to bet Joran van der Sloot and Jeff Dahmer got a whole lot more fan mail from women than Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg ever did. I think that his larger point – that women’s biologically wired mating instincts are dysfunctional in the modern world stands.

          I can match your tautology.

          I bet the world’s fattest woman has gotten more sex offers and love letters than any male serial killer… and she has more men jerking off to her pictures.

          TAKE THAT! HA!

        • <em<Link?

          Here are two :
          http://www.nowpublic.com/world/joran-van-der-sloot-receives-love-letters-female-fans-2632330.html

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia

          Hybristophilia is one of the few paraphilias known to have significant percentages of women. Contrast this with foot fetishism.

          In his book, A Father’s Story Lionel Dahmer mentions the depressing volume of fan mail his son received after he was incarcerated for his gruesome crimes. This is in stark contrast to Jeffrey’s lackluster track record in terms of personal accomplishment. Even though his father had a PhD in chemistry, Jeffrey had failed to even complete his first semester in college.

          I bet the world’s fattest woman has gotten more sex offers and love letters than any male serial killer…

          Link? I’m not aware of anyone keeping score on that account, maybe because the biggest danger of men giving attention to the world’s fattest woman is that she may be motivated to eat herself to death. Tragic, but it hardly has significant real-world consequences. But men like Zuckerberg and Gates receiving far less sexual attention than killers such as Manson or Dahmer does has far-reaching consequences. That’s because men are both potentially far more productive than women to society when they’re inspired to create and far more dangerous when they’re inspired to disrupt it.

          and she has more men jerking off to her pictures.

          Jerking off is cheap. Idolization of murderers is not.

        • But men like Zuckerberg and Gates receiving far less sexual attention than killers such as Manson or Dahmer does has far-reaching consequences.

          What I meant to say was:

          But men like Zuckerberg and Gates receiving far less sexual attention than killers such as Manson or Dahmer does have far-reaching consequences.

        • Again, the point is that fetishes exist.

          You have to prove that this fetish of liking serial killers is MORE frequent than other equally bizarre fetishes.

          The reason it’s more dramatic and reported on is precisely because it’s a serial killer. But for it to be an evidence that women are drawn to violent men, you’d have to show that this fetish attracts 10x more than another fetish of equal FAME.

          For example, Dahmer is the NUMBER ONE most popular and famous serial killer in the world. Is his volume of fan mail as big as another man who’s equally famous.

          I’m willing to bet Joran van der Sloot and Jeff Dahmer got a whole lot more fan mail from women than Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg ever did.

          And how would you know this? THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, ITS NOT A NEWS STORY. The whole reason it GETS REPORTED when serial killers get groupies is PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS BIZARRE.

        • If anything, this is proof of the power of Fame. Women’s attraction to fame and status is so strong, that it even sometimes overcomes other instincts and logic.

          If you want to use that one as a good example of “fucked up female wiring” then I would agree because it would be technically correct. Women’s wiring to go after status and fame is so strong that it sometimes become illogical and irrational.

          To make it about male-prisoners, you have to prove that these men get MORE attention than men of EQUAL fame and notoriety.

          To make it about male-prisoners, you have to prove the fetish for AVERAGE non-famous male prisoners is more common than an equally stupid fetish for morbidly-obese women.

        • AlekNovy wrote:
          Again, the point is that fetishes exist.

          You have to prove that this fetish of liking serial killers is MORE frequent than other equally bizarre fetishes

          Why? As I pointed out before, almost all those bizarre fetishes have little or no real-world impact. While a serial-killer fetish does have one. You’re asking me to consider an apple-to-oranges comparison to be relevant.

          And how would you know this? THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, ITS NOT A NEWS STORY.

          Yet I’ve seen pictures of both Mark Zuckerberg’s girlfriend and Melinda Gates. They aren’t exactly top-of-the-line hotties. If G & Z have so many women hot and panting to go to bed with them, why haven’t we heard more about them? If they have bevies of beauties throwing themselves at them, the Daily (fe) Mail is certainly keeping it a well-guarded secret.

          The whole reason it GETS REPORTED when serial killers get groupies is PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS BIZARRE.

          Sorry, but I’m not convinced that selection effects (man bites dog) completely explain the phenomenon.

          A quote from the Wikipedia article on hybristophilia:
          “Many high-profile criminals, particularly those who have committed atrocious crimes, receive “fan mail” in prison which is sometimes amorous or sexual, presumably as a result of this phenomenon. In some cases, admirers of these criminals have gone on to marry the object of their affections in prison.”

          So just how bizarre is it? It’s the serial killer piece that’s bizarre, since such individuals are (obviously) rare. Once they become notorious, their having groupies is not.

          Here’s another quote:
          “Hybristophilia is accepted as potentially lethal, among other such paraphilias including, but not being limited to asphyxiophilia, autassassinophilia, biastophilia and chremastistophilia[1]”

          So it’s acknowledged by the article that it’s a paraphilia that can have fatal consequences. Yet you insist on comparing it to a harmless fetish such as fattie-love. Care to explain why?

          I suspect many, if not most fetishes are rooted in normal human behavior and tendencies, and/or are side effects of our hard-wiring. Fattie fetishes may be a byproduct of the fact that the body of a mature woman is naturally softer and more rounded than her male counterpart. The serial killer groupie phenomenon may have its roots in our ancestral past where men who were proven to be killers (on average) left more descendants behind.

      • Black Pill wrote:
        Are you seriously going to deny that female wiring is fucked up?

        I certainly wouldn’t deny that it’s maladaptive for the modern world. We see this in the corrosive effect of feminism and the absurd obsession with celebrity every day. It’s something that will need to be corrected in order to ensure social and technological progress.

      • @BP

        You obviously missed my disclaimer both at the front and the end of comment :) Maybe I wasn’t blatant… So let me spell it out in a different way.

        Yes, women’s wiring is screwed up. It’s not screwed up in this way, but ANOTHER way. Make sense?

        This is white knighting and borderline MDAD. This is why all of my writing on the MDAD is important. We can’t talk about the problems of female behavior and female fucked up wiring without it turning into “you’re just pissed you can’t get laid.

        You must have missed the italicized clarification where I said…

        *-> Again, don’t misunderstand, I am not saying it’s good that in society we have it so that getting laid required dogged persistance. I’m just saying that’s what works when it comes to volume for average-looking men of average status.

        Make sense? In other words… Women’s wiring is fucked up because they only treat you well if you have and do ABC… But having ABC has nothing to do with goodness. Sometimes complete losers and idiots have ABC, while great guys like you BP don’t have ABC. And women treat men who don’t have ABC like shit. Make sense?

        What I was then saying is that some men adopt a noble savage theory in order to not accept that women want ABC. I specifically posted 2 disclaimers that I do not condone women treating men without ABC like crap… nor inssisting on it. In fact, that’s what me and dungone have been ranting against for the past few months on FC etc..

        • Alek, I hear you. I am simply tired of any implication that (good) men need to change to accomidate women. If the way women are acting is only getting them assholes, then either women want assholes or women are useless. At some point we have to stand up to the tyranny of female behavior and its destruction of civilization. Saying, “you can get laid if you have the persistence of an asshole” in any form, works against what needs to be done because it distorts the real issue by making it about getting laid than female behavior.

        • Black Pill,

          I definitely see your point. Good men don’t NEED to do change. But they may CHOOSE to change. IF you’re interested in getting laid in the current climate (a big and individual if), then you have to adapt. That’s the pragmatic approach.

          I kinda get the sense that you believe that adapting to yourself to the current dating climate is not consistent with being anti-feminist. Am I off base here or this is what you believe?

        • I kinda get the sense that you believe that adapting to yourself to the current dating climate is not consistent with being anti-feminist. Am I off base here or this is what you believe?

          Not as such. Adapting to the current dating climate can also mean giving up on dating or going expat to find a wife from a (supposedly) non-feminist country. (I’m not sure how effective the latter is, but that is beside the point here.) The real problem is that you’re considering “getting laid” in isolation. One of the ways the MDAD is so insidious is that it gets us talking about the problems women cause purely in terms of dating and getting laid. It’s much bigger than that. A man who chooses to change to get laid isn’t being pragmatic because the problem of women is much larger than getting laid and “adapting” to the current dating climate is likely to mean that a man will be shooting himself in the foot several times in other aspects of his life. A truly pragmatic approach would consider this.

          I have come to the realization that while dating and getting laid issues aren’t irrelevant because they include female behavior, but focusing on them in isolation misses the point.

        • Waaaait, ABC as used by Alek was simply “dogged persistence” and the ability to tolerate huge amounts of rejection. What does this have to do with women not treating men with these qualities like crap? In fact it seems to me that ABC is precisely the ability to not give a shit if women treat you like crap!

          The whole point is that being a jerk or an asshole does NOT prevent women treating you like crap OR make more women like you – its primary significance is its effect on your own psyche. Being an asshole has zero effect on the female psyche – it just makes you not give a shit, and it makes you walk the fuck away of a woman DOES start treating you like crap.

          Am I missing something here??????

        • G exactly how do you have to adapt?!?!?!

          By becoming doggedly persistent – in the sense that you go and approach tons and tons of women – and by learning not to care if you get rejected?

          How does learning to tolerate rejection or approaching tons of women mean losing the good qualities that make a man have value – like morality, intelligence, sophistication?

          Somehow, discredited game ideas of “becoming what a woman wants” are creeping back in! That was not the original idea AT ALL. “Adapting” here simply means approaching more more, not changing who you are a la game. You adapt your strategy, not your personality.

        • How does learning to tolerate rejection or approaching tons of women mean losing the good qualities that make a man have value – like morality, intelligence, sophistication?

          If you’re spending lots of time going after women because they are rejecting you so much, then at the very least you won’t have time to use your good qualities of morality, intelligence, & sophistication. That’s just for starers.

        • @Ben -

          We are in agreement. By adapting I meant learning to tolerate rejection and not giving a fuck what women think. I did not mean to imply that this means losing morality, intelligence, and sophistication.

          @Ricardo –

          Precisely. Assholes happen to posses the quality of not giving a shit in addition to other less desirable qualities (like being an asshole :) ). A decent guy can stop giving a shit just like assholes, but still retain his positive qualities. I am curious whether Black Pill would consider this approach inconsistent with being anti-feminist.

          One mistake that some guys make is trying to take on ALL of the qualities of an asshole in order to attract women. I think many guys genuinely believe this is what’s required.

        • I am curious whether Black Pill would consider this approach inconsistent with being anti-feminist.

          It’s possible to be an asshole and be anti-feminist. My guess is that PMAFT is such an individual, but he is very unique. Most men going down that path will end up will end up letting themselves get ruled by women.

        • I am glad we agree G ;)

          You have just given an excellent general description of the situation.

          I actually think not giving a shit nice guys are just as common as not giving a shit assholes, but they draw less attention.

          When obvious assholes do great with women, it gets noticed, because it is not “supposed” to happen. When obvious all around nice guy and great guy gets tons of women, it barely registers, because that is no more than what you would expect, leading to a cognitive distortion.

          It’s sort of like if you read the papers, you get the sense crime is far more prevalent than it is. It’s just that crime makes for a good story.

          I also think the term nice guy is hopelessly confused. In popular imagination it can mean a man without the capacity for healthy self-assertion and energetic pursuit of his own interests (the meek and the humble of the New Testament ideal), or a guy who is simply kind, considerate, and moral. By fudging the distinction between these two completely different types of man all sorts of bizarre theories are built up.

          Obviously a man incapable of energetically pursuing his own interests and desires will not get many women, simple because he lacks the oomph to go after them. To use that basic fact to claim that being anti-social and unkind will make you attractive to women is an absurd farce.

      • Yup, Roissy ip-bans anyone who raises a point he can’t answer.

        I just wanted to point out that Roissy or Heartiste or whatever he calls himself is a dishonest liar who is fond of misreporting studies in order to support his bigoted and misogynistic tirades against women. For instance, in one of his more recent blog posts (http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/another-experimentally-confirmed-game-concept-influencing-perception/) Roissy erroneously quoted a study as supporting the “game” concept of “perception fluidity” which entails “adopting alpha male body language, qualifying girls, dressing stylishly and acting charmingly aloof” and that this “can alter the perceptions of women to think you are more desirable than you would otherwise seem as just another beta face in the crowd.” Of course, further examination of the actual PLOS study (instead of the medicalxpress article he mentioned) revealed no such thing.

        Here’s what the study says:

        “Given both a) the phylogenetic antiquity of the importance of size and strength as determinants of formidability, and b) redundant experiences during development that underscore the contributions of size and strength to formidability, we hypothesize that size and strength constitute the conceptual dimensions of a representation used to summarize multiple diverse determinants of a prospective foe’s formidability.”

        (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3324476/)

        No mention of “perdeption” fluidity here. And here’s what I posted on Roissy’s blog as a response to his usual bending of the truth to support his narrow PUA agenda:

        “That PLOS study has nothing to do with perception fluidity and is therefore not generalizable to game. It’s about the cognitive representation of formidability organized around a core dimension of size and strength. The study authors see this as an evolved adaptation that is partially contingent upon a pre-existing body of experiences accrued during the maturation and growth of the human organism.”

        Needless to say, Roissy refused to publish my comments. I suspect he routinely erases dissenting comments when he finds that he can no longer save face against a withering barrage of criticism. In Roissy’s case, I think the emperor has no clothes, which is why he would rather have a comments section filled with adoring fat, middle-aged males daily licking his nutsack, rather than one which encourages serious discussion.

        So much for pretty lies.

        • he would rather have a comments section filled with adoring fat, middle-aged males daily licking his nutsack, rather than one which encourages serious discussion.

          My guess is that his so called admirrerers are all young and inept.

        • He likes it when they lick his nutsack because they all get something out of it. No one is hetero. Think about it.

      • I also got IP-banned from Roissy’s blog for mentioning that my wife and I both run game on attractive NYU female sophomores and then bed them. I figured he’d want to hear from someone who can have casual sex correctly and moreover, managed to marry someone who also enjoys it, but NOPE!

        Roissy hates anyone who actually has sex. He’s not in that category I’m afraid. Has anyone ever seen that blog post from that woman, Lady Raine or something, where she posts pictures of who he really is? Turns out he’s an underpaid accountant who hangs out with his sister and a large black guy who might be his boyfriend ALL the time.

        This is funny because Roissy screams and yells about blacks constantly and asserts how they are inferior. And gay men too. It would figure that he’s seeing a black man and that he’s gay. That would be just typical.

        The problem with 100% of those dudes is that they spend all damn day and night thinking about men’s butts. They’re never out getting women. They hate women, and they hate sex. They love men’s butts, but they’re afraid of the social consequences, so they’ve invented this elaborate ruse. What is “alpha, beta, omega, zete, theta,” shit but a system to spend the maximum amount of time thinking about men’s butts?

    • I’m just not buying Roissy and his sycophants as the second coming of Rousseau and the Romantics. First off, Rousseau was a brilliant social critic. Second, their theories have some superficial similarities, but the motivations, conclusions, and the reasoning are far different. Especially because as an HBD-er and avid Steve Sailer fan, Roissy is avidly against the “noble savage” archetype. Ever read his passive aggressive racist rants against blacks and immigrants and tribal societies on his blog and on twitter? I’ve highlighted many of his racist, anti-”primitive” tweets in the past.

      • Ever read his passive aggressive racist rants against blacks and immigrants and tribal societies on his blog and on twitter? I’ve highlighted many of his racist, anti-”primitive” tweets in the past.

        All that means is that the Roissyite fetishize the “noble white savage”.

        • I don’t know if the motivations are so dissimilar. Roussaeu used the noble savage to attack Europe as too effete, and Roissy used the supposedly savage black to attack whites as too effete. In both cases lack of sophistication and intelligence is held up as superior to posession of those qualities.

          In both cases refinement, intelligence, sophistication, education, technology, are thought of as inferior. Of all the advanced civilizations, only Northern Europe after the Renaissance has this idea as a persistent side-thread in its thought.

          Roissy has made an astonishing and explicit admission that for him, a man’s value is simply what a woman thinks of him. There can be no doubt about how Roissy judges the value of a man. If a woman is attracted to a man, he has value. It’s quite simple. Few people give such clear and unambiguous explanations of their standard of value, especially when it is so discrediting. We should be grateful to Roissy that we do not have to guess at what he ultimately values.

          For Roissy, the black man who represents savagery (in Roissys insane world view) has ultimate value. Since women do not value refinement, intelligence, civilization, and sophistication, according to roissy, these things do not have ultimate value in Roissys scheme. Sure, he indulges in occasional asides in how sad it is that women do not value these things, but ultimately, it is female approval that determines value, and while it would be nice to have both civilization and female approval, as things stand we cannot have both, and female approval is infinitely more important as a judge of a mans value.

        • Roissy has made an astonishing and explicit admission that for him, a man’s value is simply what a woman thinks of him. There can be no doubt about how Roissy judges the value of a man. If a woman is attracted to a man, he has value. It’s quite simple. Few people give such clear and unambiguous explanations of their standard of value, especially when it is so discrediting. We should be grateful to Roissy that we do not have to guess at what he ultimately values.

          While Roissy claims to be an anti-feminist, this admission by him proves that he’s feminist in the most fundamental way possible.

  4. Pingback: Civilization and its Discontented Ladies « man boobz

  5. Pingback: The Great Paleo Dieter Roundup…Or Not | The Black Pill

  6. Since women do not value refinement, intelligence, civilization, and sophistication, according to roissy, these things do not have ultimate value in Roissys scheme

    He believes this because the females he deals with are the bottom of the barrel. This Rosie guy would look like a lower class hairy monkey around any female of class. Females may prefer dominant men but it is all very subtle. Insulting or “negging” a female is a sign of an insecure inferior male.

  7. I am not sure how much women can change. I watch animals. Male persistence is often even more extreme in the animal world. I see dogs trying to help bitches and the bitches run away. You can observed this with horses too. With pigeons and birds I see the males chasing female endlessly and never getting anywhere. My Dad had a hard time when he was young and he grew up in the 1960′s. I can read Charles Dickens, David Copperfield and he gets rejected repeatedly which of course implies this was normal in the 19th century. You can have any society you want and men are going to spend time chasing women. And they will get rejected frequently.

    The biggest problem with today’s society is that way too much emphasis is put on sex. Today a sexless man is considered a loser. Two hundred years ago no one gave a shit about how many women they laid. They actually thought of sex as evil and dangerous. If you want a society with less sexual frustration you will have to focus not on changing women. They will never change. You have to start realizing that sex is just not that great and not that important. And being with a woman is just not worth agonizing over.

    Anyways, for now we can be happy that we aren’t pigeons…

  8. IMO the most important definition of civilization is controlling female behavior, all of which acts against civilization. Civilization was created as soon as ways of controlling female behavior were developed. Before civilization men had to constantly deal with female behavior so they never had the time to develop science, technology, etc.

    you mean “female behavior” like looting, pillaging, rioting, and related chaos that typifies an “uncivilized” state of nature? that’s a good point. if something like Hurricane Katrina happened in my city and civilization collapsed, i’d definitely be afraid to venture out without my gun lest i run into…women. and in countries that have yet to develop civilization even today, it’s definitely the women who are at fault.

  9. Hey, I’m new here and so could use some help. Why are women necessarily the antithesis of civilization? Why is it that you assert that female behavior destroys civilization? What is it about an uncivilized world that places women in a position of power?

  10. Pingback: Will Gamers Become Terrorists Now? | The Black Pill

  11. “Civilization was created as soon as ways of controlling female behavior were developed. Before civilization men had to constantly deal with female behavior so they never had the time to develop science, technology, etc. When female behavior was put under control, then men didn’t have to spend so much time worry about women. Men could spend time inventing agriculture and later other forms of science and technology. Keeping women and their destructive behavior under control is the key to civilization.”

    …What?

    Was this article intended to be humorous? I honestly couldn’t even concentrate on the rest of the article due to the absurdity of that paragraph.

    Men and women evolved together as a part of the same species. Therefore, the nature of men played a part in the nature of women, and vice versa.

    Just by the fact that females have always engaged in very selective breeding with males, it is completely impossible for females to have had nothing to do with the way men have evolved.

    If women had a huge impact on how our male ancestors evolved, and modern men create civilization, then just from those two facts alone, one can see that women certainly had something to do with civilization.
    Because of this, your definition of ‘civilization’ is fundamentally flawed.

    There are several more problems with that paragraph, and I did think of covering them, but it would have gotten very long. I’ll just leave it at that.

  12. But on the topic of the rest of the post, about Feminism being anti-civilization, that appears to be a correct observation. The reasons for believing that you’re correct there are plentiful.

    Now we have women who have the same legal and voting powers as working men, but they basically still act like housewives by wanting others to fund and take care of their lives for them. If there’s anything that women are very good at, its trying to make themselves other peoples’ responsibility.

    Due to women’s constant need for provision and protection from the nation, which the nation extracts from men, I honestly am conflicted about whether or not women should have had any say in political matters at all until drastic changes were made. Since they basically want the same things a child wants (provision and protection), it’s basically like giving children voting rights. Like children, they’re not going to think about the well-being of the parent (the nation and its men) as they whine for what they want. And as parents often do, the nation and its men give in to the child’s demands.

    This stems from women being taken care of all their lives and having the expectation that they’re going to be taken care of by someone other than themselves.

    Unfortunately, this makes it easy for the government to use scare tactics to get votes and make power-grabs. All a politician has to do is promise more provision or more protection to everyone in general or women specifically, and they have the female vote. Whenever there is a choice to be made between freedom and security, women as a group will always choose security. Barbarosa did a very good video mentioning this a while ago:

    …and this is why Feminism resulted leads to such utter ruin. Feminism demanded more “rights” for women before women had proven that they could become true adults; before women had proven that they really wanted TRUE equality. This resulted in a bunch of childish people who have no idea how to be adults gaining control of our country.

    What should have been done is women should have first had to prove that they can become true adults, that they want and can handle TRUE equality, and then EARNED their voting rights and workplace positions.

    Then we wouldn’t have this childishness. If women had to earn everything in the same way as men, it would be hard for them to remain childish in life. They wouldn’t survive for long. Without all of the extra help from affirmative action and gender quotas, and even all of the extra generosity that they get from men, women would finally be forced to adapt to the harsh world like men, or die out. I have heard this theory of women eventually being forced to adapt before, mainly from Stardusk, and hopefully he’s right.

    But, yes, you’re right: Feminism does lead to the ruin of civilization, because it allows children to have power over others. By children, I mean grown women who may as well be children.

    When talking about Feminism, though, it makes sense to really distinguish Feminists from women, or else you’ll inevitably end up thinking things that don’t quite make sense.

    For example, Feminism encourages women to take their hypergamous instincts and just go wild with it, so in that way, feminism does rely on an aspect of females’ nature.

    However, Feminism also spreads hatred of men and makes women think that men have wronged them, primarily by spreading false statistics about rape and domestic violence. Hypergamy served an evolutionary purpose in the past, but hatred of males never did. Hatred of males and a belief that males have wronged women doesn’t appear to be something that’s innate in females. It’s caused by feminist lies.

    So Feminism is not synonymous with female. Feminism takes some aspects of womens’ nature and twists it out of control, but feminism also causes a hatred and ill will towards men that has no natural cause.

  13. “They believe in game because they believe game represents a pre-civilization masculinity. (They are wrong about this too.)”

    There is a difference between saying “this is how things are,” and “this is how things should be.” Most Manospherians don’t WANT to live in the jungle, most want to restore traditionalism(i.e., civilization), but we still understand that the jungle exists, more now than ever thanks to feminism, and behave accordingly. I have seen a lot of condemnations of “game” here, what can I ask, is your alternative? How does female sexuality work? Why are some men more sexually successful than others?

  14. A woman created civilization,when she bit into an apple and discovered a germinating seed. knowledge of the tree not the tree of knowledge

  15. Women likely invented weaving, pottery, did the cave-paintings & yes, invented agriculture! Without women, there would be no civilization. Now, how do you like them apples, Omega Virgin?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s