Technology to Extend Modern Way of Life for a While Longer

"How much longer can things continue like this?" is a common question asked by exasperated people who see all the red flags of this dying culture, economy, and civilization. It's a great question, but, unfortunately, it is not so easy to answer. There are plenty of factors that can affect the time remaining for civilization. No one knows the day nor the hour of the coming collapse. But what we can be certain of in these times is that technology is a powerful force that is easy to both underestimate and overestimate. And despite all the "band-aid and paperclip" approaches the powers that be apply that will obviously not hold forever, technology often steps in and pushes back the eventual, inevitable reckoning. 

Thomas Malthus predicted a population crisis. He rightly observed in his own time how human population increased by multiplication while agricultural expansion increased by addition. In other words, population growth was greater than the ability of the earth to feed everyone. Once the Oil Age hit a little over a century later, people scoffed at the ideas of Malthus. Technology had saved the day! Thanks to oil, agriculture could expand much more, sustaining a much larger global population.

And oil is really the lifeblood of the current global civilization. It is the magic elixir that allows the modern world to exist and function. It allows globalization, greatly increased agricultural ability, consumerism, police states/bloated governments, feminism...many things not inherently part of human existence - the proverbial bells and whistles, good or bad. 

In the past few years, the concept of "Peak Oil" emerged. Oil Production follows a bell curve - oil production rises, and it must inevitably fall. This idea was not too widely known until fairly recently, perhaps the last 3-5 years. And it was met by plenty of scoffers, who, predictably, always seem to fall back on the religion-esque notion of "technology will save us!"

But they are only right in the short term. Oil has become increasingly difficult to recover. The old oil fields are almost done for. But techonology has once again stepped in - not to save us per se, but it has apparently put some more time onto the clock. Alternative oil sources such as oil shale, oil sands, artic oil, and deep-water are now being used, along with techniques like hydraulic fracturing.

It's not exactly technology saving us though. It's temporary. These new sources of oil are dirtier, harder to obtain, and much more toxic than traditional sources. Developing countries, like China, are increasing oil consumption. So problems haven't really been solved. An untenable way of life is being extended. All the while, new problems are being created. And now it won't be so easy to fix anything.

I'm certain that the governments of the world will continue on a ruinous path, spending themselves into the oblivion of debt as long as the oil is flowing. This way of life will continue up until the very moment it cannot any longer.

Keep your eyes on the clock.

The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin's Story: Drawing A Parallel to Media Misandry

If you are like most people, you probably had a strong initial reaction to the killing of Trayvon Martin. One way or another, taking one side or another, within seconds or minutes, you probably had a strong opinion formed very quickly. As time has gone on and bits and pieces have unfolded about Martin's killing, you may have changed your opinion. Furthermore, you may think, as I do, that the media played a powerful role in trying to influence peoples' opinions on this story and inflame emotions about it.

A central element of this story is the racial distrust that the media has apparently been trying to fan the flames of. Immediately,  the racial aspect came up. The media certainly decided to prod at this aspect and took advantage of the story of a "white"(?) man killing a black man (or child?). Using this, exploring the racial aspect must certainly have been good for ratings and sales. But beyond the easy tactics, the media also distorted certain things to heavily influence people to form a certain opinion. (I know how shocking, simply shocking it must be, to hear that the media does such things.)

I had heard or read Zimmerman described as white, latino, and white-latino. I had heard/read that Zimmerman was injured. Other sources said he was not injured, one source I heard saying that a video of Zimmerman in custody showed him having no injuries. Some said Trayvon could be heard yelling on a recording; others said it was Zimmerman. Pictures of Martin shown on the news have reportedly been younger photos of Martin - obviously intended to make certain that Martin is definitely perceived as younger and innocent. 

The details became so many and so obscured by media influence that I realized I couldn't form an accurate enough opinion of what happened unless I had witnessed this first-hand. But I realized a parallel that deserved to be written about here.

For readers here, it is no secret how misandrist the media is, and how heavily to one side it leans. In matters of a story involving violence between a man and woman, the man is almost always going to be the "perpetrator" and the woman is almost always going to be the "victim," regardless of facts. Heavy-handed tactics will be used to influence peoples' views of what happened, regardless of what the story is. But some stories are easier to use nefariously than others.

Just as the media desires to fan the flames of distrust between races, the media also desires to fan the flames of distrust between the sexes. Misandry, of course, is a result of that. And the media is very good at creating tension, anger (at only the "appropriate" targets of course), and distrust among groups, especially along racial and gender lines.

Seeing a controversial story unfold in the media, and jumping to conclusions (after having every "fact" fed to you by the media) is tantamount to a fish biting biting the bait. No matter how certain one is of the facts, it's an easy trap to fall into. Forming an opinion based off of media influence is ubiquitous, invasive, and is easily used to influence people to absorb any idea the media desires, at the whims of the media.

The stories may be different, but the aims of the media in feeding them to us in its distorted way remains the same. So the next time a controversial story appears in the news, and you see people getting riled up, angry, and indignant, consider how controlled and scripted it really is.

Watching the Clock for a Dying Society

They've been around since the Dawn of Man: societies. Wherever two or more human beings are gathered, there it is. It's too easy to think of ancient societies as if they were extremely vulnerable, while at the same time, regarding the current one as indestructible. Perhaps that is because of how humans perceive time. Societies come about and dissipate so slowly in relation to a single human lifetime that perhaps this error is unavoidable. I know it is true for me: I have often remarked to myself how amazing it seems that this society still stands. But this is short-sighted of course. We have but to look at logical consequences of present actions, that, if not changed, will cause a society to collapse and splinter.

Ancient civilizations were vulnerable to collapse from loosening values/morality splintering human connection and trust apart (including but not limited to feminism), warfare, economic collapse, natural disasters, decadence, and so on and so forth. The current world is no different with these vulnerabilities; these risks are always present or at least possible. A few differences I can think of immediately though are the massive amounts of energy sunk into this civilization, the size of it (considering the global reach of it, if not direct and total control of the entire globe, at least not yet), and entrenched powers that keep certain ideas powerful (feminism, consumerism) while keeping certain ideas taboo and despised (masculinity, patriarchy).

These things, which I will call "safety nets for bad ideas" are very good at propping up things like feminism. But how much longer can the beast be propped up? And that is a huge question once all the illusions of this way of life are stripped away and examined.

I think this is one of the great ironies of good societies: it takes a good society to result in a really rotten society. A society of good moral values, trust among people and classes of people, that values work-ethic, creativity, wealth-building, etc. has a lot that can be corrupted after all. And one of the tragedies is that a society going bad must use the resources that it previously built up when it was on the straight and narrow path.

Here's a useful simplification: Good societies are creative, moral, and desire to create all kinds of wealth, from cultural kinds of wealth to literal treasures. Bad societies desire to destroy, take things from those who have created and built these forms of wealth, are distrustful, self-centered, and feel entitled to the fruits of decadence.

Feminism has been about destruction, entitlement, theft, and decadence. As bad societies must do, it takes from what a good society has created and sours it. 

So here's a logical - although imprecise - test for how much time a society has left:

How much goodness is left? How are its' values and morals and trust holding up? How much opportunity, ingenuity, and creativity does it have left? How much wealth remains?

Is everything good about the society dead or dying? If so, time is probably running out for it very quickly.

The Decline and Fall of Marriage, Family, and Home - American Civilization on the Way

It's no news that Marriage and Family Structure are foundations for any civilization, and for decades at least, these things have been in decline in the United States and the Western societies in general. In more recent times, the decline of marriage and the two parent household have sped up. Marriage rates are down, but out-of-wedlock births are increasing. Not only that, but the women having out-of-wedlock babies are increasing in age. In decades past, it was much more often teenage girls who became pregnant outside of marriage. And now, the stigmas are gone, marriage has declined from easy divorce and misandrist laws, and besides those factors, men have been priced out of the marriage market anyway. It's damn hard to find a decent job nowadays, especially for a man.

The culture has been eroded so severely that the stigma of illegitimate births is now absent. We're so fully into the "you go grrrl, so in-duh-pen-dent, I don't need a man" stage of feminism that the culture apparently has nothing left to hold it back. We're in the train heading toward the cliff. And there's no indication anyone is going to save the train.

Consider also another part in the erosion of society: the rise of single occupant households. Along with single-mom households, single person ones are increasing as well. So a large portion of American households are chaotic producers of future thugs, and another large portion are isolation boxes. Great.

But there are still traditional households. Two parent families. A few multi-generational homes.

Fast forward to 2030 for a moment. Those kinds of homes will be all but eliminated then. I'm not being an alarmist. I would write with lots of exclamation points if I was. I see the end game of feminism, misandry, and the destruction of marriage, family, trust, and all those good things which feel so distant.

Society will change for the worse and I am powerless to affect it. So be it.

Some have asked how marriage can be saved. How can society be restored? How can we put right what has been done wrong? And even if one could...

...is there anything worth saving left?

What Does The MRM Need?

In the resistence to feminism, the Men's Right's Movement (MRM) does very poorly when judged by the big picture, away from the "man-o-sphere" of the internet. It lacks any real political and social power, the kinds that feminism had little problem gaining and harnessing and controlling society with. I do not think that the MRM is truly incapable of gaining real power in society, but I do not see the rise of the MRM in the future. (Rather, I see the decline of feminism, and thus a chance for a return to traditionalism of sorts, or at least society being forced to try something other than feminism.)

But what could the MRM make use of that would allow it to gain real social traction?

(I was originally going to write, "what could empower the MRM?" but did not for the bitterness that feminism has forced upon the word.)

Here I will present a few things I think the MRM would need to become influential and powerful:

1. Unification
I think that without unification, the MRM will remain stratified enough that accomplishing anything will be improbable at best. Feminism had essentially one real camp: the unity of the entire gender. Feminism had lots of branches, "theories," and variations, but it was, at heart, a unification of females. Feminism of all stripes was and is a preference for the female always, a deferment to women in all matters, and a favoring of women in all things. Unity was easy for feminism for some reasons. Before too long, there were either feminists or non-feminists. By contrast, I can see a major reason why the MRM is still unsuccessful: there are lots of camps, lots of branches, lots of variations. This itself is not a problem, so did feminism. However, the MRM's camps do not agree like feminism's camps did. The MRM has Men Going Their Own Way, Traditionalists, PUAs, and such, but they are often mutually exclusive: they each desire different things for society. The differences can be vast, not to mention ironic. A post I made recently called much of the MRM feminism for men. Traditionalists want Marriage 1.0, traditional gender roles, etc. PUAs just want to game sluts for as much sex as possible. MGTOWs just do whatever they want. There is no unity. And without unity, the MRM will largely be an internet club for men to vent and discuss.

2. A Hero/Mouthpiece
Feminism had its prominent women. The MRM needs prominent men. The MRM needs a face, or, perhaps, faces. Society needs to see real men working for real justice for real men. Good stories need good heroes. A likely candidate would likely be someone who has a legal background, a career in media, or someone in a high place (or relatively high place) politically. These would be the most helpful, but a man in any of these fields would probably be committing career suicide. So, alternatively, I think a good religious leader would be a good candidate. And because feminist would try to shout down this man from speaking, or even threaten him, it would be good to have multiple Heroes. A support network of MRM heroes. It needs to be shown that the MRM has strength, unity, and real men who are working for the just causes of mens' rights. One man could easily be shouted down, but many would be much more resilient. Any movement needs leaders and heroes, and the MRM is no exception.  

3. Facts, Reason, Morality, Justice, Goodness
It's not just playing around, and the lives of men are at stake. Though feminists find facts, logic, morality, and others to be abhorrent, the MRM should rely on such principles. There needs to be goodness at the core of the movement. Merely going for revenge (so to speak) would be a disservice when the lives of real men are constantly being chewed up and destroyed by the feminist machine. Feminists had and have tons of influence on the government, corporations, the media, and religion. The MRM would have to gain influence in those areas. It would need commercials about how feminism hurts men and society, laws that protect men from feminist abuses, corporations which would endorse and support menss' causes, churches that would be courageous enough to stop telling women what they want to hear and preach Biblical gender roles, marriages, and the like. These are merely a few ideas. It would take so much.

But first the MRM has much to come to agreement with.

Feminism for Men

I have long realized what cleaves Mens' Issues apart. It is essentially a disagreement over how a man in a misandrist society should live. Because men in Western nations live in matriarchal, misandrist societies, the issue is of tantamount importance. Small mistakes a man makes can ruin his life in such a society. And understandably, this creates a fearful mindset. Why take on responsibility? Why try to change anything? Why do anything that could help a society that hates you? Even if what you would do is work towards Patriarchy, for example. Such an effort places the Western man at great risk. Even a group effort at Patriarchy would be fraught with risk for the men involved.

And so the first, increasingly common "solution" for men is to drop out. Stop doing things that can help society, and live selfishly. After all, a man is likely to be oppressed or punished if he takes on responsibility and attempts to live what used to be a man's life. Any prodding for the man to do anything more is instantly decried as shaming language. (And let me be clear: a lot of it is shaming language, particularly when said by Western women.) Even other men who support Patriarchy, for example, are often perceived as offering nothing but shaming language, if not ideas that are horribly risky. After all, why try to find a good woman and start a family in a misandrist society? At any time, it can end in disaster for a man. This is a legitimate concern, of course. Even those young men who desire Patriarchy don't know what the solution is. Why sacrifice yourself for a society that despises you? Why take even the slightest risk?

However, what is the end result of this kind of thinking? It's something I regard as feminism for men.

Under feminism, men are relegated to being useless and objects of hatred, promiscuity is rampant and desirable, the breakdown of family is unavoidable, and men become infantile, withdrawing into themselves and living as selfishly as possible, and so on and so forth.

And under the mindset of much of the MRA world, the results are essentially the same. Thus I regard it as being like feminism for men. The primary difference is that it is pro-male, at least superficially. It is not a solution. It is a self-defense method against misandrist society. It doesn't try to bring about Patriarchy. It doesn't promote trust and understanding and peace between the sexes. It's just withdrawing into a defensive position.

And so MRA and such ideas are likely never going be properly opposed to feminism, at least as long as they can't break away from being under the thumb of feminism. And even if they do, they must promote Patriarchal values, rejecting the results that feminism brings. Otherwise, we'll end up with the same result: men made useless and infantile.

As long as feminism keeps a stranglehold on society, though, how do men rise above MRAish defensive tactics? How do men fight the fight feminism together and create an environment where Patriarchy can return? How does Patriarchy gain a foothold?

Thus far, these questions lack a solid answer in the West.  

There Are No Feminists on Sinking Ships, but there are Men Going Their Own Way

As soon as I read about the recent cruise ship crash that happened off the coast of Italy, the thought of women trying to get off the ship first while men being told to wait until the women were safe immediately came to mind. And of course, upon reading about the story and comments about it online, I found mention that men rushed past women in order to get to safety. Cue the shaming language. Equality apparently only applies selectively.

Obviously, female entitlement requires that men risk their lives for women they don't even know, and plenty of women will post angry comments online about men failing to acquiesce to female entitlement. What made me grin, though, was that I saw a great counter of lots of male posters calling out the feminist entitlement. And so I see this as evidence of the awakening to the feminist illusion of female entitlement and superiority. Something that was once difficult to discuss openly - even on the internet - is now easier to find. Men have started to voice their questioning of feminist domination. 

And in this case of the sinking cruise ship, the simple logic of "Why should I risk my life for women just because I am a man?" was acted upon, and rightfully so. No doubt this could be twisted by feminist "logic" as being callous, but this is not so. I'm certain that most men would be willing to risk their lives for their mother or grandmother, for example. However, why should a man risk his life for a woman simply because she is a woman? Many more men are now asking that question and answering it with "he shouldn't."

There are no feminists on sinking ships. But there may be men going their own way, or at least those unwilling to potentially sacrifice their life for women on sinking ships.
It's now every man - and woman! - for themselves.

The Trouble with Game

A tactic or method that some men suggest for dealing with women (at least women they want to have sex with) is to employ "game." Supposedly, game allows the typical man to get laid by putting in some effort at employing tactics to attract women. These tactics are used to appeal to womens' unconscious desires so that they are attracted to the man and will date and/or sleep with him. Some argue that game is good because it gives men access to some women, whereas otherwise they may have access to none. Superficially, this may seem like a good idea, but it is a superficial solution. It's like giving band-aids to the mortally wounded.

For most men, game does not work, and game is definitely not a threat to feminism! Instead, game subtly plays into feminism's hand.

In a sane society, men will have a sexual outlet. This sexual outlet will be perfectly legal and will be easily accessible for men. Of course, I am referring to prostitution. Women ultimately control sexual access, and prostitution evens the playing field. Some women will always turn to prostitution, so in the absence of feminist control of the state, men will have an adequate sexual outlet. Feminist societies tend to outlaw prostitution, criminalizing it and forcing men to suffer. 

And along comes game, which claims to be a solution to this mess. But game is a tactic for desperate men in a feminist society. It doesn't solve anything. It's merely attempting tricks to get around the problems. It does nothing to fix the problems themselves! This is why I say game plays into feminism's hand. Game doesn't question feminism or the idea that women must be "gamed" in order to date or sleep with them. It accepts it as normal and okay. For this, I see game as being a tool of manginas.

The other main problem I have with game is that it simply won't work for most guys. I've noticed a very simple pattern when it comes to how women choose guys: hot guys get picked, and ugly or just 'non-hot' guys get rejected. Game does not appear to affect this. Women choose guys who are tall, slim, with good faces. It is true that women also choose guys with certain traits such as narcissism and a massive ego, and guys with money. However, I recognize a difference between men who are picked for relationships and guys who are picked for sex. Resources are the criteria for dating/marriage, and looks and traits are the basis of picking a guy to reproduce with. (Guys who have no particular advantage are just left out entirely.) The men who get the most sex are the attractive ones. I don't see variations to this, aside from perhaps the odd exception which doesn't prove anything conclusive.

Desperate men can easily be scammed into seminars or lessons for learning game. If the outlet of prostitution existed in this society, it would cease to be an issue. But in the current societal climate, a man must acquiesce to the wishes of the feminism if he wants to have any access whatsoever to women. And that means game. A solution would be to legalize prostitution. Game is simply a tool used to fleece desperate, sexually starved men. It's a tool of feminists and manginas.   

Benjamin Barnes: Another Needless Horror Story Ending in Violence

I heard about Benjamin Barnes the day the story broke, and although I did not read a news story or watch a segment on television about his killing of a park ranger, I immediately suspected that he is another man who was driven over the edge of sanity. Obviously, mainstream news stories about him depict him as mad, suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or some other hand-wave. Digging for details - especially from articles from the "man-o-sphere" led me to the conclusion that Barnes is the latest example of a man needlessly driven to violence.

It is possible that Barnes suffered from PTSD, and that this played a part in the violence. If PTSD was the primary cause, it was needless that his story ended in violence and death. Barnes was an Iraq War veteran. Soldiers are trained to kill. Reintegration into society is a process for a soldier, or it can be a longer process. Soldiers are trained to react to situations with violence, as per the job. The presence of PTSD can make this reintegration extremely difficult. How does any soldier slip through the cracks in that regard? How is any soldier released from duty back to civilian life without being identified as having PTSD? There are symptoms. This alone could indicate misandry in the form of society and the military discarding soldiers once they have completed service, and not helping them reintegrate into a society that soldiers should immediately return to. 

What struck me even more, though, came when I dug a little deeper. Barnes had been put through custody issues regarding his daughter, and had been accused of domestic violence by his girlfriend. He had also had a troubled past, doing some things he should have done. I'm not attempting to present him as blameless; however, I see the downward spiral his life must have become. Facing a misandrist court system with its exorbitant demands and extortion against men is enough to drive any normal man mad - for a soldier who may or may not have PTSD, I can see how difficult it could become to not simply see red every moment. And we know how the story ended. He killed a park ranger, fled into the forest, and was found dead a day later. And all of this was needless. Not every man who is forced to deal with the misandrist courts will end up like Barnes, although I am certain all men forced into such a situation deal with the same undying rage at a system that hates them. Barnes' scenario was perhaps more severe all in all, but men have snapped who have dealt with less in their lives.

This should be a lesson, although I'm sure the mainstream will forever ignore these details in the background of Barnes' story. This kind of violence is needless, and is completely preventable. Furthermore, there are causes originating from misandry. Ignoring that men who end up doing what Barnes did often had their children taken away and accusations made against them ignores major reasons why a man - a normal working "joe" all the way to a war veteran - may snap and commit violence. The system's blindness to its own misandry guarantees that such violence could happen anytime. 

A man does not kill a park ranger and flee into the forest for no reason, randomly, by accident. I doubt only PTSD would cause it either. But a man whose life is in a downward spiral, and whose downward spiral is helped along by misandry, could do this anytime.