I define civilization as that which represses or transforms the worst in human nature. It's a fragile thing, easily damaged or destroyed. Russell Kirk defined it as a "hothouse flower," and he was right. He also noted when it was destroyed, what was released he referred to as "Chaos and Old Night."
One of the things it represses or transforms is the feral nature of the uncivilized female, which is worse than men's. This is why Rudyard Kipling (who everyone should read), wrote in his poem, "The Female of the Species" this repeated line: "For the female of the species is more deadly than the male."
Imagine my surprise years ago when I realized uncivilized feral females murder their infants by the tens of millions, become extraordinarily promiscuous, and try to destroy everything men have created - which is everything. For that matter, they try to destroy men through whatever means they can conjure - drugs, shaming, guilt.
It's astonishing so few women are see what they are. Just as bad, everything bad they do they see as good. But then, evil always does disguise itself as good.
There was a reason that in mythology Eve brought evil into the word - and it was the moron Adam who listened to her. Then there was Pandora, who opened that box and let every evil loose in the world - except Hope, which remained in the box.
Again, mythologically, women have two natures - the nurturing and the destroying. That is, if they don't nurture, then they destroy. They've also been considered to be Mother Earth - back to nature, anti-civilization - from which you can infer that men are Civilization.
This is what happens when men allow women to get out from under their authority. Since men created everything in the world - civilization, science, technology - when women get their hands on it they cannot maintain it and so end up destroying it. And men are letting them do it out of a misguided sense of fairness.
Once women were under the control of men, then men could develop civilization, science, technology. Since many of them have now wiggled out from under men's authority, there are some men now spending a lot of time fighting being destroyed by them. And everything is now going backwards.
This is why there have never been any matriarchies and never will be. They would immediately self-destruct.
"So much of feminism is a screed against civilization, science, and technology. Feminists have called Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica a rape manual." writes the author of the Black Pill blog. "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 unconsciously 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."
What he has written is why P.J. O'Rourke noticed that without men civilization would last until the next oil change, and why Camille Paglia said without men, women would still be living in grass huts. Tastefully decorated ones, I'm sure, but still grass huts.
I define fairness (justice, really) the way it is defined in the Four Cardinal Virtues: "To give each his due." I can think of no other definition that works.
As of right now, many are not prudent, or courageous, or just, or show much self-control. And that is why society is in the trouble it is in.
Brilliant. Profound. One of your best. Thankyou, my life experience and study has confirmed all you have written. I have nothing to add. Well done
A funny thing. In general I agree. I would add wiping out civilization wouldn't really "restore female power," I figure. It'd just put us back where we started--a six, ten-thousand year, setback. But it'd just start again like before.
So they wouldn't in fact gain any such thing--so the anti-civilization isn't toward a rational goal.
If it is true women are anti-civ, which may be, it is as though that attitude is for its own sake, or irrational, for no sake, because a goal of "restoring female power" I figure would not actually be achieved. If from savagery men dominated and we all moved into civilizational advance, then from a state of savagery it would happen again as before. Truly there is nothing to gain in such a setback, for any party.
Post a Comment