Perhaps not word for word, but it is the implication of a lot of what you write, and the source of a lot of the criticism against your point. As the blackpill is just a set of observations about reality, it does not make sense to say "genes and culture is the only way to make the blackpill thrive" as you titled another post.
See below. You are mistaken (as are many others).
It would be like saying "make the theory of gravity thrive". The theory of gravity is what it is. It doesn't survive or fail. It just is. It's mainly a semantics thing, but its why people aren't understanding what you're saying
There is no "Theory of gravity"
@AnilBashir. What we have about gravity is this:
- A shitton of observations of stuff falling on earth and of trajectories of objects in space (planets, asteroids, galaxies, spaceships).
- A Newtonian theory of gravity which works fine on Earth and in the Solar System but fails for supermassive objects (Black Holes, Neutron Stars and the like)
- Another theory of gravity called General Relativity which works in most cases where the Newtonian theory fails but still fails on some very large scale observations (galaxy rotation curves, Cosmic Microwave Background distribution, Galaxy Clusters collisions, etc.)
- A whole slew of newer theories which try to solve the latter problems. Some of them posit the existence of unseen masses (dark matter theories) while others put forward altogether new theories of gravity (MOND, etc).
None of the theories of gravity listed in 2. to 4. is currently able to explain ALL of the observations we have as per 1. As time goes by, even more anomalous observations are added to 1. which make a new theory in category 4. more and more necessary.
So you see what happens in science, even for something as apparently well known as gravity. There are observations on the one hand and there are competing explanatory theories on the other. These are
clearly separate.
For the Blackpill it is the same. You have a lot of observations on the one hand (studies + numerous personal observations by incels), and then you have a theory that is most commonly put forward to explain these observations. This is what I call the genetics-only theory.
I never disputed the Blackpill
observations. What I do dispute is the genetics-only theory that is being put forward most of the time. I believe that genetics only is not enough to explain what we observe.
More specifically, I understand of course that it is genetics that determines a man's looks. Why I dispute is that women are solely or even primarily genetically determined to choose their sexual partners based on looks. They behave like that
today. But they did not in the past. In my view, this is because female sexual selection is based on
who the alpha male is, not on who the most handsome male is.
Among animals, the alpha male is
not chosen based on looks but on which male wins the most fights. Among humans, who "wins fights" is determined much more by culture than by actual physical combat. In most civilizations (including our own) men are prevented from actual physical combat except during wars and among some criminal groups (niggers). However, each culture provides men with avenues of non-combat competition which will decide who the alpha is. Today, because of the emphasis of the media on male beauty and the saturation of the screens with handsome men, it is enough for Chad to win a beauty contest against other males to be declared the alpha. This is a highly anomalous situation brought on by a cultural factor (the media's behavior). It never existed in any past cultures. In most of these, male handsomeness was viewed as gay and not particularly valued.
That is why I say that the current situation, including inceldom, is primarily due to cultural factors. Female partner choice instincts are not normally driven by male handsomeness, the fact that these instincts have been redirected towards Chad right now has a cultural cause, not a genetic one.
