Civilisation: A manifesto for its rescue, before it’s too late.

Originally posted 2020-10-19 17:15:20.

In order to rescue civilisation we must act quickly. The following sets out a viable manifesto.

• Men and women are different.  This is innate, not the product of ‘socialisation’.

• Men are risk-taking and women are risk-avoidant.

• This is an evolved adaptation linked to the two-group tribal structure in which women and children are protected by shielding them from risk, while men are expendable. This structure gives rise to ‘female privilege’ in which women are deferred to by men and there is a taboo against violence towards them.

• It is generally the case that the two-group structure is present in all non-urbanised cultures (ie, those which do not build cities and have a low level of technological development, though they might be extremely sophisticated in other ways).

 

• In those where the above is not the case, it is because of cultural interchange.

• In many cultures in the world today, this social structure remains normal; the West is aberrant.

• Many such cultures have managed to preserve the two-group structure while becoming urbanised and attaining high technological development. In the West this has failed, but only in the last century.

• Innovation implies preparedness to take risks. The Wright brothers were not risk-avoidant; nor was Columbus, nor, for that matter, Jesus.

• Because women are risk-avoidant they are not innovators.

• Because men are risk-takers they are innovators.

• Women do not seek technological advancement, they seek security. But they require men to invent the solutions to their problems. This is what led to first civilisation, then reward systems and technology. Initially, men provided security in return for sex. When women demanded higher levels of security, men provided them. Being creative, they developed city living and technology to do it. But they still had to be rewarded.

Technological Culture

• The development of a technological culture, therefore, is quintessentially a masculine project

• Because it is masculine, it naturally values qualities like individualism, competition, adventurousness, risk-taking and innovativeness. Women are opposed to all of these unless they are persuaded of a specific, defined, tangible benefit to them.

• If Homo sapiens has been around for 300,000 years, as has recently been claimed, why is it that for 290,000 of them, there was so little innovation? We had stone technology for all that time. What changed? Men started inventing things, that’s what.

• Why did it take them so long? Because the feminine, collectivist social structure they lived in either suppressed or provided no reward for innovation. No sub-Saharan African culture even invented the wheel.

• New technologies, eg copper, bronze, iron, agriculture, navigation, printing, medicine etc were invented, then jealously guarded, by men. This in turn gave rise to craft guilds. Why was technology so protected? Was it because being a craftsman had status that might rival blood status?

• Matriarchal organisations fought tooth and nail to prevent the adoption of new technologies; witness the Catholic Church which, by the end of the First Millennium, was essentially a Goddess-worshipping cult (and remains so today, in most of the world). It was not until the advent of the Jesuits and their much more masculine philosophy that the church changed. Protestantism was partly a reaction to the Catholic Church’s feminine essence and partly a realisation that, by the use of technology, men could indeed master nature. Nothing was written, in other words and Catholic dogma had to give way.

• Technology led directly to the Age of Colonisation, through which strongly masculinised, technological European cultures were spread around the world. There is no chance that women would ever have invented seagoing ships, gunpowder or even geography. Through technology, European cultures completely overwhelmed effeminate, non-technological cultures wherever they encountered them.

 

The Enlightenment

• European culture, however, uniquely of human cultures, became Enlightened. The Enlightenment itself was founded on the idea that every individual is equal before the law and God.

• This is directly contrary to the hierarchical structure of most urbanised and civilised societies, which inherited this from the hierarchy of motherhood that operates within the Home or women group. It is also in opposition to the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church.

• Enlightened culture is not materially egalitarian; it is individualistic, not collectivist. It is predicated absolutely on the individual and his rights. It implicitly supports the principle of personal, heritable property – that is, what you make, you keep. Its economic model is Capitalism and this has been exported throughout the world, more or less successfully.

• European culture was not the first to understand the benefit of technology or to embrace it. The Chinese also did as, to an extent, did Islamic culture. But both of these stagnated when they adopted collectivist, effeminate ideas that did not value innovation. They placed these above the rights and importance of the individual and the real differences that individuals could make. What was the European advantage? Capitalism.

• This was crucial to the success of Anglo-Saxon culture. If everything is in the will of Allah, why bother inventing anything? If anything I make, that improves my life, will be taken from me and given to others, why should I make it at all? If the wealth I create, instead of going to my sons and daughters, will be claimed by the collective, why should I make any more than the bare minimum I require? I would rather go fishing. Capitalism says, on the other hand, that you will be rewarded for your efforts, not in some future life, but right here on Earth.

The collectivist hive-mind

• To a collectivist hive-mind, the future cannot be changed for the better by the efforts of individuals. That is why, to these people, the future can only be assured by the erasure of individuality. Everything is written. European culture has not as yet made that mistake but if it does, it will collapse, just as others have.

• As technology advanced, the pace of social change accelerated. Standards of living and general health rapidly improved. Lifespan, which had shortened in the early stages of urbanisation, due to poor standards of hygiene, extended again. Men’s role changed. From being hunters they became warriors — expendable meat for the matriarchies they served, as the Spartans were — and then technologists and scientists. At the same time, their technological advances allowed them to assume greater control of society, because they could create wealth, which allowed a better and longer life.

• With the rise of technology, the old matriarchal structures had to give way, because matriarchies are collective and hierarchical. Technology came from men, and male society is fraternal and egalitarian, but most of all it is meritocratic.

• This reversed the order of importance in society. From women being the most important, because of their ability to make babies, men became so because they invented the new technologies and knew how to use them — in battle, but also in the peaceful betterment of society and in the slow improvement of general living standards. In other words, creating wealth became more valued than making babies.

City Dwelling — Civilisation

• City dwelling was a defensive strategy from the beginning. If that had not been the case, we would still be living in small, scattered settlements. The development of cities was predicated on two things: firstly, the desire of women for increasingly comfortable and secure homes; which require defences against banditry, and secondly the innovativeness and hard work of men, who produced the surpluses that made city-building possible. In other words, without technology, there would be no civilisation.

• Technology has allowed human population to boom from around 10 million 50,000 years ago to around 8 billion today. This population can only be supported by the technologies that men invented and can use. Without them, the population must reduce. This would produce human suffering on a huge scale. The victims will seek someone to blame.

• This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. Collectivist cultures are by definition effeminate since they outlaw individuality — and the result is genocide. Then, eventually, once they can take no more suffering, no more bullets in the back of the head, no more graves they must dig for themselves, the people throw off the yoke of collectivist oppression and revert to freedom. Ask any Pole or Czech if he wants Communism back.

• It follows that the inevitable end of radical feminism, which seeks to impose a Communist collective, led by radicalised women, on the entire planet, would be human tragedy the likes of which the world has never seen before.

The New Helots

• In the feminist dystopia, white men will be the new Helots. The question is, will they accept this status or rebel against it? And if they do the latter, how will the feminist controllers of society respond? And where will that get us? Civil war is more than a possible outcome.

• Non-innovative societies may remain largely unchanged for extended periods, but whenever they come across a culture that is more masculine or technologically advanced, they fail. In Egypt, it was the Greeks under Alexander who served notice. In the USSR, it was the USA’s winning of the technology race, under Ronald Reagan, that brought down the collectivist Empire.

• Technology is the only method we have that might resolve the planet’s problems, without massive population reduction.

• Men are the technologists.

• Therefore, emasculating society, far from saving the planet, is likely to kill it. We need more masculinity, more risk-taking and more innovation. Elon Musk may be an asshole but he’s an improvement on Kamala Harris.

Marriage

• Marriage was invented by women in order to bind men’s power, innovation and technical ability to the hive. Men’s reward was not only access to sex but knowledge of whom their children were, which otherwise would be impossible. But this is only tempting when women are fully committed to having those children.

• With remarkably few exceptions, nearly all of the great developments, not just in technology and science but also in the arts, have been made by men. This is not because women were somehow ‘oppressed’ but because women do not innovate. They are risk-avoidant, collectivist and always seek to punish risk-taking and individualism.

• If we allow feminism to emasculate our societies, then those societies will fail. We can cite the evidence: for thousands of years, societies that became effeminate have collapsed. Akkadia, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome. Will we follow that dismal track?

• If we wish to protect all that is good about our culture, then we have to fight for it; and that will mean fighting radical feminists and their fellow-travellers, in order to rebalance society such that the focus of both men and women is once again on family and the future.

Killing the Goddess

• The Goddess was rejected and replaced with God, whose role in earlier cultures was limited. The real reason was that women, matriarchies and Goddess culture suppressed and outlawed innovation and individuality. But civilised culture needs exactly these traits and values them above motherhood. It recognises that women make babies, but without men, they would not survive to adulthood. It realises that technology, a masculine trait, can help far more babies to survive and so grow the population.

• This constitutes an evolutionary impulse. For women to succeed in the social hierarchy of such a culture requires either: that they somehow preserve the two-group social structure, in which motherhood is valued and raising children and managing the nuclear family is seen as an honourable life for a woman; or that they become pseudo-men — that is, they reject motherhood, home and family and attempt to compete directly with men in a masculine social structure. Sadly, radical feminism promotes the latter.

• The problem with this is that women are evolved precisely to play the social role of mother and hub of the nuclear family. If they attempt to compete in a masculine hierarchy, they inevitably fail. Therefore they seek to change masculine social structures such that they become effeminate and so advantage women over men. Feminists do not seek equality and never have; they seek to emasculate society such that it favours women over men. This necessitates disadvantaging men.

• This is the feminist project and we see today that it is already destroying Western culture. Reproduction rates amongst Europeans (which includes most North Americans) are plummeting and at the same time, women are less happy — naturally, because they are women, evolved to raise and nurture children, not surrogate men.

Mass Cultural Suicide

• To continue with this social experiment would be, essentially, to commit mass cultural suicide and worse, as the inability of collectivist cultures to feed their own peoples becomes increasingly marked. The Covid-19 panic illustrates exactly how collectivist cultures fail to deal with crises: in the face of a mild virus that kills at most 1.4% of those infected — and then overwhelmingly those who are elderly or otherwise vulnerable — governments closed down their entire economies. The toll of starvation and suffering is yet to be counted but it happened because our society has become effeminate and risk-averse — because of the influence of women.

• Civil war is only one possibility if we continue with this insanity. Such wars have happened before, when women tried to establish control over society. Mass starvation, fuel shortages and inability to react intelligently to natural phenomena — as the COVID-19 fiasco demonstrates — are others.

Islam and Communism — the enemies of civilisation

• The Islamic world has shown no technological development since the 12th century; all of its technology is taken from the West. That is because, for all its masculine facade, Islam is an effeminate, risk-averse culture. Without the West to produce technology that it can pirate, Islam itself would stagnate and then fraction into civil war as availability of food and water became the focal point for violence. We see this already across Africa, where European culture has been rejected. This route will lead to more war. The whole of Europe and eventually the Americas will descend into the hell of internecine conflict that we have seen in the Arab world ever since the end of the colonial era. We are already a long way down this path.

• Communism is another collectivist ideology that effeminises every culture it contaminates. In the twentieth century alone, Communism was responsible for the murders of at least a hundred million individuals, and more likely double that. Why? Because they were individuals. And all the while, the people, in the name of whose betterment the slaughter was carried out, starved to death.

• History shows that collectivist, effeminate societies always collapse when confronted by masculine individualistic ones. Their reaction is invariably to turn on their own children, to blame them and to punish, even kill them. Today, it is not Cronus who eats his children, but feminism who eats hers. The question is, ‘How many must die this time?’

• The great weakness of European culture is also its strength: its tolerance. This derives from the inherent respect for the individual and his rights before law, that were established by the Enlightenment. Sadly, this allows collectivist insurgents to operate with almost complete licence, as they plan and attempt to execute the destruction of the very culture that permits them the freedom to do so. This is no less true of feminists than it is of Muslims or Communists.

Without men there would be no civilisation

• Without men, there would be no civilisation at all. Men’s inventiveness, individuality, productiveness and willingness to take risks is what created it. We must recognise this and take whatever action might be necessary to protect it.

• This will inevitably mean rolling back over a century of effeminisation in our culture by reducing the influence of women in areas that do not directly concern their families.

• To do this will require that we completely destroy feminism in all its aspects. We must recognise that men and women are different, should have different roles, and reward them for respecting this.

•