- For the past 50 years, olygarchy was keen to lower birthrates. So, we have waves of feminism to do that. The masculine periods were just "stops" of a bigger ongoing trend to peace men. A sort of: "we fuch you 10 years, and then we give you superhero movies so you are happy for another 5 years". And the, we start the circle again.
- The difference this time is as follows:
1- China has replaced Western men. Not women (it is not women doing cars, but Chinise men). So, the Western Olygarchy has miscalculated the size of the "fucking" period. Combine this with the financial 2008 crisis, which affected men mostly, and you will realise that men are extremely angry,
2.- After the 2008 crisis, the left believed that it was time to accellerate. This lead to a extremely hard feminism wage. This made men learn about gendre policies and Voilà! They discovered that they supported 95% of jobs casualties, live 5 to 7 years less and have 50% less education. Men are angry not because they are not feminist: they are angry because they are. And now, its their turn for equalithing things.
3.-Society has been feminized not because of women, but because of corporate. Corporate are communist entities: they work in group. The higher capacity of men is diluted in such system.
4.- Finally, in addition to all the above, wokism legitimazed discrimination against men. So men have learnt that they are not only the ones that have been "fucked" during 40-50 years, but also that they need to accept discimination for another 163 years till women get the equal payment. The answer to that is NO.
The solution is curiosly not depending on men, but on olygarchy. And the fallen of the birthrates, and the fact that inmigration has been a big failuare (even in Europe) has lead to a different view: we will need to raise birthrates again in 20 years time more or less. For that, we need men. Again.
1- China has replaced Western men. Not women (it is not women doing cars, but Chinise men). So, the Western Olygarchy has miscalculated the size of the "fucking" period. Combine this with the financial 2008 crisis, which affected men mostly, and you will realise that men are extremely angry,
- First, China is irrelevant to US and frankly global demographics, especially because China is an insular power with virtually no regard for the outside world. Yes, China has become the industrial powerhouse in the world but that is largely because the West financialized. Fortunately, financialization cannot sustain without productivity so it will blow up, we will definancialize, and that will enable an industrial rebuild (not tariffs.)
2.- After the 2008 crisis, the left believed that it was time to accellerate. This lead to a extremely hard feminism wage. This made men learn about gendre policies and Voilà! They discovered that they supported 95% of jobs casualties, live 5 to 7 years less and have 50% less education. Men are angry not because they are not feminist: they are angry because they are. And now, its their turn for equalithing things.
- Try not to think of feminism an an ideology, it is really a poor business model because it depends (like everything else) on male productivity. Feminism has made men less productive and women less reproductive so the social-economic system becomes unsustainable. Equally, culturally too much feminism creates hyper-masculinity, what I call Masco-Nationalism or Neo-Masculinity in the working men who are punished by the system (the Deltas revolt)
3.-Society has been feminized not because of women, but because of corporate. Corporate are communist entities: they work in group. The higher capacity of men is diluted in such system.
Yes - but its an unsustainable model. Corporations become less productive and self-sustaining because productive masculine men exit the system. And again, it creates counter-movements (Manosphere / MGTOW / Red Pill) as men rebel against the system that spurns them, breaking it financially.
4.- Finally, in addition to all the above, wokism legitimazed discrimination against men. So men have learnt that they are not only the ones that have been "fucked" during 40-50 years, but also that they need to accept discimination for another 163 years till women get the equal payment. The answer to that is NO.
Discrimination = litigious society = corporate-welfare state. All amount to the same thing, all are unsustainable. Remember, the system is propped up by financialization, printing money (unproductive) and borrowing from foreigners (dollar denominated debt. Both are breaking because of inflation and dedollarization, which spikes interest rates until the financial system busts (2008, 2020, now 2025)
The result is the Sex Cycle will break and likely reverse.
Very interesting. Few additional points for your consideration.
- "China has become the industrial powerhouse in the world but that is largely because the West financialized."
Correct. But it is the financialization of economy that lead to women participation in the market place. Financialization lead to more education (women control education) and more clerical work. This has bolster womens' participation in economy in contrast with men declining industrial jobs. China is irrelevant from a political point of view, but the West has been capable to financializer itself thanks to China assuming the industrial work.
-"Try not to think of feminism an an ideology, it is really a poor business model because it depends (like everything else) on male productivity. Feminism has made men less productive and women less reproductive so the social-economic system becomes unsustainable. Equally, culturally too much feminism creates hyper-masculinity, what I call Masco-Nationalism or Neo-Masculinity in the working men who are punished by the system (the Deltas revolt)"
Agreed. Feminism has been a tool for lowering the birthrates. Do you know the McKenzie report of 1974 and even the UN report on population of 2025? Both recognise feminism as a tool to lower birthrate. Mission acommplised.
Conversely, now it is starting to be clear that we need to rise fertility. And this leads to very problematic solution. Do you "enslave" men now to housework? This has proven a failure in countries like Sweden. Do we "enslave" women? How do you convince women to do what you have been telling them that it is oprresion and the Handsmaid Tale?
The only solution is the destruction of the State (women are dependent on the state) or financial economy. Trump is trying the later by imposing tariff, but this will be no quick enough. The only solution will be gender quotas for men at University but even with that, you have a significant problem: how you convince women.
Women will suffer a lot in the next 20-30 years...
- Yes - but its an unsustainable model. Corporations become less productive and self-sustaining because productive masculine men exit the system. And again, it creates counter-movements (Manosphere / MGTOW / Red Pill) as men rebel against the system that spurns them, breaking it financially.
Agreed. But they will bride us with gender quotas at University. Male teachers... And then, the narrative will change (it is already starting to change). "Men are chatching up". "Men are relevant for boys". "Boys lag behing because they mature later"... and so on. The NYT is already preparing the narrative.
This will balance education of men and women... But will not rise the fertility rate a lot in countries like Spain (1,1x) of Korea (0,9x).
- The result is the Sex Cycle will break and likely reverse.
100% agreed. But this requires definancialisation of the economy, and this will be very hard.
There are other more scared alternatives.
Enslaving men cannot be disregarded (look Iceland: all political possitions are females, and even have been suggested not allowing men at Parliament). With the excuse that females do better at education, and it is equality to compensate all the opresion history, etc., we might see a near future where men are the one required to be stay-at-home dads. What was bad for women will be good for men...
If you see places like Sweden and Spain, fathers are doing more home work than mothers. Denkmark is drafting girls as well as boys... Misoginy is already being considering a hate speach offence in the UK: ADF (male party) or other symilar "far left" are being ilegalised... Men may sooner than later beeing considered a hate/terrorist group.
There is some olygarchy that considers that women leading leads to a better society...
Fortunatelly, this seems not to work neither. Men are not easy to enslave (beyond 6 months parternity leave, which most men are just taken for tax reasons), it is unfair for 50% of population and... men cannot have babies, so the sistem leads to 1 or 2 maximum babies in high income families... And you cannot financierise the economy to an extent that all women are breadwiners for all men.
Furthermore, all matriarchies have been always substituted by patriarchies. China will start producing babies again sooner than later. The same for Russia. You have the Arabs and Africa.... A "all female" Europe will lead to a inevitable war by more patriarchal societies. Or a replacement (as it is happening now).
Finally, it will be easier to convince back women (it is alreay happening with the trad wife movement) to stay at home. University degrees will loose all prestige and wages will go down again.
But in any case, we, as men, will need to be very careful of the mainstraim in the comming years, as it is not totally discharted the "enslave all men" solution.
Another alternative is... allowing sharia law!! And convert Europe to Islam - this is already happening in the UK.
Another alternative is artificial wombs. We are not far from that, and THAT's really scary. A total distopy....
A final consideration: Artificial Inteligence may change gender power dynamic again. I am a lawyer in Big Law, and we are already contracting less lawyers than ever. In 20 years, there will be no translators, less lawyers, doctors, psicologist... all female work. It is true that also car drivers may be affected, but it is the first time in history where we have a technological disruption that affects... the C-Suite level as well! Or even more! Despite being a lawyer, I was raisen in a blue collar environment, and I find this like a "historical karma" for blue collar workers. I am eager to see the world in 20 years times...
Leaving here a few thoughts, some might seem like a refutal attempt to some points, but they are not, it’s more along the lines “the bad topics might not be THAT bad after all”.
I do wholeheartedly agree that we go through cycles, that this one that started since the 60s is one of constant decline, that there’s angst, distrust, stress in the air. There have definitely been big changes in the last 15 years.
I do use the crowded subway often and it’s obvious that people, understandably, don’t want to even acknowledge the existence of others (maybe our nature isn’t made to have to constantly deal with thousands of faces daily in crowded uncomfortable places).
So, first:
I don’t think porn, video games, laziness, etc are ultimately catastrophic; they are after all a venue to dissipate energy in a way that’s not burning and breaking stuff down the corner.
Plus, some of those can trigger artistic or creative endeavors like programming, drawing, music, etc.
Sure thing it’s not the same as building a home or fixing some roofs and there are still the really worse ones like drug use, but definitely a better deal thanks to this chest of technology that we never had before in previous years/ages/cycles.
Second:
Dropping out of college: besides the basic STEMs fields and nursing, medicine, etc most of the university degrees have been, for men first for now, discovered to be a total scam.
There’s no job at the end of it, after toiling so hard it ends in asking for loan bailouts; a machinery propelled by HR and keyboard CEOs asking for “bachelors required, masters preferred” for very basic entry level jobs.
Those that drop out might understand better that the trades, accounting, truck transportation certifications, etc not only pay, but pay way more than some of the other career studies.
I can see also that lately more know better to not get in financially crippling situations such as a fancy car (to attract attention sometimes as a goal m) or get in an expensive home that won’t be possible to pay in a lifetime of monthly payments.
Third:
Most men go through a serious rejected phase, specially as a young man when they still have not much to offer; I have realized that the young ones in that situation nowadays have internalized to stay out of trouble. And those that have been hurt badly, let’s say due to “life”, also know better now.
Most understand that it’s not worth dying for or going to jail for anybody; this tames a lot all of those passion or emotional impulses that can end in disaster. Same for those that get the knack of putting themselves between bullets and someone they don’t even know, all of these have gone down.
Instead they hang around, do activities, start adopting healthy habits like bouldering climbing, gym, running, etc… along with a heavy dose of gaming and all that granted. (Anecdotal, I do work with quite bright young adults plus younger extended family and acquaintances).
Fourth point:
This is where likely my ignorance is going to shine in full: I still don’t get what’s the big deal with the declining birth rates.
Homes would start freeing themselves up, even the younger generation might funnel inherit assets and other things due to, let’s say aunt Claire and uncle Robert not having kids and leaving it to the one nephew all uncles in the family happen to share.
Maybe the government would get in trouble as there would be less tax payers at some point than today, but with declining population we should need less bureaucrats telling others what to do? That sounds like not our problem.
As a final note, for rationalizing the lack of ambitions:
It feels that in general both genders are found to be less attractive to each other: everybody is overweight, with a touch of bad manners attitude and other less colorful traits.
Aaron Clarey, ex-economist of Asshole Consulting fame, does hilariously propose an economic metric, “orgasm per capita”, referring to how sex, attraction, etc are one of the most powerful motivators to do productive endeavors.
Leaving it here, got long, TLDR; I do see a half glass full. My opinionated 0.002 cents.
1. While the activities you mention are not self-destructive, do not fall for the false binary that if men were not doing them they would tear society apart. Western men trend towards a different kind of productive energy when our energy is properly developed and funneled, less so in other parts of the world.
2. Dropping out of college, abandoning jobs is not what's wrong, its the crippling of institutions that leaves these men adrift, and many, perhaps most, are vulnerable to sinking into the abyss (suicide, drugs etc.) without some external focus to invest their energy.
3. Totally agree. Men are reinvesting in alternatives modes of life and parallel communities, which if you read the rest of my series is the beginning of a larger Neo-Masculine movement.
4. Also agree. The demographic problem we face is far from insurmountable, and Europeans have experienced demographic collapse before during the Bubonic Plague and the industrial revolution (especially at lower levels of the social-economic ladder). That said, demographic replacement is far more serious. We need to re-establish strong majorities in our own countries and double quick.
Good job, but here another view:
- For the past 50 years, olygarchy was keen to lower birthrates. So, we have waves of feminism to do that. The masculine periods were just "stops" of a bigger ongoing trend to peace men. A sort of: "we fuch you 10 years, and then we give you superhero movies so you are happy for another 5 years". And the, we start the circle again.
- The difference this time is as follows:
1- China has replaced Western men. Not women (it is not women doing cars, but Chinise men). So, the Western Olygarchy has miscalculated the size of the "fucking" period. Combine this with the financial 2008 crisis, which affected men mostly, and you will realise that men are extremely angry,
2.- After the 2008 crisis, the left believed that it was time to accellerate. This lead to a extremely hard feminism wage. This made men learn about gendre policies and Voilà! They discovered that they supported 95% of jobs casualties, live 5 to 7 years less and have 50% less education. Men are angry not because they are not feminist: they are angry because they are. And now, its their turn for equalithing things.
3.-Society has been feminized not because of women, but because of corporate. Corporate are communist entities: they work in group. The higher capacity of men is diluted in such system.
4.- Finally, in addition to all the above, wokism legitimazed discrimination against men. So men have learnt that they are not only the ones that have been "fucked" during 40-50 years, but also that they need to accept discimination for another 163 years till women get the equal payment. The answer to that is NO.
The solution is curiosly not depending on men, but on olygarchy. And the fallen of the birthrates, and the fact that inmigration has been a big failuare (even in Europe) has lead to a different view: we will need to raise birthrates again in 20 years time more or less. For that, we need men. Again.
Good thoughts here.
A different POV for your consideration:
1- China has replaced Western men. Not women (it is not women doing cars, but Chinise men). So, the Western Olygarchy has miscalculated the size of the "fucking" period. Combine this with the financial 2008 crisis, which affected men mostly, and you will realise that men are extremely angry,
- First, China is irrelevant to US and frankly global demographics, especially because China is an insular power with virtually no regard for the outside world. Yes, China has become the industrial powerhouse in the world but that is largely because the West financialized. Fortunately, financialization cannot sustain without productivity so it will blow up, we will definancialize, and that will enable an industrial rebuild (not tariffs.)
2.- After the 2008 crisis, the left believed that it was time to accellerate. This lead to a extremely hard feminism wage. This made men learn about gendre policies and Voilà! They discovered that they supported 95% of jobs casualties, live 5 to 7 years less and have 50% less education. Men are angry not because they are not feminist: they are angry because they are. And now, its their turn for equalithing things.
- Try not to think of feminism an an ideology, it is really a poor business model because it depends (like everything else) on male productivity. Feminism has made men less productive and women less reproductive so the social-economic system becomes unsustainable. Equally, culturally too much feminism creates hyper-masculinity, what I call Masco-Nationalism or Neo-Masculinity in the working men who are punished by the system (the Deltas revolt)
3.-Society has been feminized not because of women, but because of corporate. Corporate are communist entities: they work in group. The higher capacity of men is diluted in such system.
Yes - but its an unsustainable model. Corporations become less productive and self-sustaining because productive masculine men exit the system. And again, it creates counter-movements (Manosphere / MGTOW / Red Pill) as men rebel against the system that spurns them, breaking it financially.
4.- Finally, in addition to all the above, wokism legitimazed discrimination against men. So men have learnt that they are not only the ones that have been "fucked" during 40-50 years, but also that they need to accept discimination for another 163 years till women get the equal payment. The answer to that is NO.
Discrimination = litigious society = corporate-welfare state. All amount to the same thing, all are unsustainable. Remember, the system is propped up by financialization, printing money (unproductive) and borrowing from foreigners (dollar denominated debt. Both are breaking because of inflation and dedollarization, which spikes interest rates until the financial system busts (2008, 2020, now 2025)
The result is the Sex Cycle will break and likely reverse.
Very interesting. Few additional points for your consideration.
- "China has become the industrial powerhouse in the world but that is largely because the West financialized."
Correct. But it is the financialization of economy that lead to women participation in the market place. Financialization lead to more education (women control education) and more clerical work. This has bolster womens' participation in economy in contrast with men declining industrial jobs. China is irrelevant from a political point of view, but the West has been capable to financializer itself thanks to China assuming the industrial work.
-"Try not to think of feminism an an ideology, it is really a poor business model because it depends (like everything else) on male productivity. Feminism has made men less productive and women less reproductive so the social-economic system becomes unsustainable. Equally, culturally too much feminism creates hyper-masculinity, what I call Masco-Nationalism or Neo-Masculinity in the working men who are punished by the system (the Deltas revolt)"
Agreed. Feminism has been a tool for lowering the birthrates. Do you know the McKenzie report of 1974 and even the UN report on population of 2025? Both recognise feminism as a tool to lower birthrate. Mission acommplised.
Conversely, now it is starting to be clear that we need to rise fertility. And this leads to very problematic solution. Do you "enslave" men now to housework? This has proven a failure in countries like Sweden. Do we "enslave" women? How do you convince women to do what you have been telling them that it is oprresion and the Handsmaid Tale?
The only solution is the destruction of the State (women are dependent on the state) or financial economy. Trump is trying the later by imposing tariff, but this will be no quick enough. The only solution will be gender quotas for men at University but even with that, you have a significant problem: how you convince women.
Women will suffer a lot in the next 20-30 years...
- Yes - but its an unsustainable model. Corporations become less productive and self-sustaining because productive masculine men exit the system. And again, it creates counter-movements (Manosphere / MGTOW / Red Pill) as men rebel against the system that spurns them, breaking it financially.
Agreed. But they will bride us with gender quotas at University. Male teachers... And then, the narrative will change (it is already starting to change). "Men are chatching up". "Men are relevant for boys". "Boys lag behing because they mature later"... and so on. The NYT is already preparing the narrative.
This will balance education of men and women... But will not rise the fertility rate a lot in countries like Spain (1,1x) of Korea (0,9x).
- The result is the Sex Cycle will break and likely reverse.
100% agreed. But this requires definancialisation of the economy, and this will be very hard.
There are other more scared alternatives.
Enslaving men cannot be disregarded (look Iceland: all political possitions are females, and even have been suggested not allowing men at Parliament). With the excuse that females do better at education, and it is equality to compensate all the opresion history, etc., we might see a near future where men are the one required to be stay-at-home dads. What was bad for women will be good for men...
If you see places like Sweden and Spain, fathers are doing more home work than mothers. Denkmark is drafting girls as well as boys... Misoginy is already being considering a hate speach offence in the UK: ADF (male party) or other symilar "far left" are being ilegalised... Men may sooner than later beeing considered a hate/terrorist group.
There is some olygarchy that considers that women leading leads to a better society...
Fortunatelly, this seems not to work neither. Men are not easy to enslave (beyond 6 months parternity leave, which most men are just taken for tax reasons), it is unfair for 50% of population and... men cannot have babies, so the sistem leads to 1 or 2 maximum babies in high income families... And you cannot financierise the economy to an extent that all women are breadwiners for all men.
Furthermore, all matriarchies have been always substituted by patriarchies. China will start producing babies again sooner than later. The same for Russia. You have the Arabs and Africa.... A "all female" Europe will lead to a inevitable war by more patriarchal societies. Or a replacement (as it is happening now).
Finally, it will be easier to convince back women (it is alreay happening with the trad wife movement) to stay at home. University degrees will loose all prestige and wages will go down again.
But in any case, we, as men, will need to be very careful of the mainstraim in the comming years, as it is not totally discharted the "enslave all men" solution.
Another alternative is... allowing sharia law!! And convert Europe to Islam - this is already happening in the UK.
Another alternative is artificial wombs. We are not far from that, and THAT's really scary. A total distopy....
A final consideration: Artificial Inteligence may change gender power dynamic again. I am a lawyer in Big Law, and we are already contracting less lawyers than ever. In 20 years, there will be no translators, less lawyers, doctors, psicologist... all female work. It is true that also car drivers may be affected, but it is the first time in history where we have a technological disruption that affects... the C-Suite level as well! Or even more! Despite being a lawyer, I was raisen in a blue collar environment, and I find this like a "historical karma" for blue collar workers. I am eager to see the world in 20 years times...
Fantastic read.
Leaving here a few thoughts, some might seem like a refutal attempt to some points, but they are not, it’s more along the lines “the bad topics might not be THAT bad after all”.
I do wholeheartedly agree that we go through cycles, that this one that started since the 60s is one of constant decline, that there’s angst, distrust, stress in the air. There have definitely been big changes in the last 15 years.
I do use the crowded subway often and it’s obvious that people, understandably, don’t want to even acknowledge the existence of others (maybe our nature isn’t made to have to constantly deal with thousands of faces daily in crowded uncomfortable places).
So, first:
I don’t think porn, video games, laziness, etc are ultimately catastrophic; they are after all a venue to dissipate energy in a way that’s not burning and breaking stuff down the corner.
Plus, some of those can trigger artistic or creative endeavors like programming, drawing, music, etc.
Sure thing it’s not the same as building a home or fixing some roofs and there are still the really worse ones like drug use, but definitely a better deal thanks to this chest of technology that we never had before in previous years/ages/cycles.
Second:
Dropping out of college: besides the basic STEMs fields and nursing, medicine, etc most of the university degrees have been, for men first for now, discovered to be a total scam.
There’s no job at the end of it, after toiling so hard it ends in asking for loan bailouts; a machinery propelled by HR and keyboard CEOs asking for “bachelors required, masters preferred” for very basic entry level jobs.
Those that drop out might understand better that the trades, accounting, truck transportation certifications, etc not only pay, but pay way more than some of the other career studies.
I can see also that lately more know better to not get in financially crippling situations such as a fancy car (to attract attention sometimes as a goal m) or get in an expensive home that won’t be possible to pay in a lifetime of monthly payments.
Third:
Most men go through a serious rejected phase, specially as a young man when they still have not much to offer; I have realized that the young ones in that situation nowadays have internalized to stay out of trouble. And those that have been hurt badly, let’s say due to “life”, also know better now.
Most understand that it’s not worth dying for or going to jail for anybody; this tames a lot all of those passion or emotional impulses that can end in disaster. Same for those that get the knack of putting themselves between bullets and someone they don’t even know, all of these have gone down.
Instead they hang around, do activities, start adopting healthy habits like bouldering climbing, gym, running, etc… along with a heavy dose of gaming and all that granted. (Anecdotal, I do work with quite bright young adults plus younger extended family and acquaintances).
Fourth point:
This is where likely my ignorance is going to shine in full: I still don’t get what’s the big deal with the declining birth rates.
Homes would start freeing themselves up, even the younger generation might funnel inherit assets and other things due to, let’s say aunt Claire and uncle Robert not having kids and leaving it to the one nephew all uncles in the family happen to share.
Maybe the government would get in trouble as there would be less tax payers at some point than today, but with declining population we should need less bureaucrats telling others what to do? That sounds like not our problem.
As a final note, for rationalizing the lack of ambitions:
It feels that in general both genders are found to be less attractive to each other: everybody is overweight, with a touch of bad manners attitude and other less colorful traits.
Aaron Clarey, ex-economist of Asshole Consulting fame, does hilariously propose an economic metric, “orgasm per capita”, referring to how sex, attraction, etc are one of the most powerful motivators to do productive endeavors.
Leaving it here, got long, TLDR; I do see a half glass full. My opinionated 0.002 cents.
Good comments and a thoughtful response.
1. While the activities you mention are not self-destructive, do not fall for the false binary that if men were not doing them they would tear society apart. Western men trend towards a different kind of productive energy when our energy is properly developed and funneled, less so in other parts of the world.
2. Dropping out of college, abandoning jobs is not what's wrong, its the crippling of institutions that leaves these men adrift, and many, perhaps most, are vulnerable to sinking into the abyss (suicide, drugs etc.) without some external focus to invest their energy.
3. Totally agree. Men are reinvesting in alternatives modes of life and parallel communities, which if you read the rest of my series is the beginning of a larger Neo-Masculine movement.
4. Also agree. The demographic problem we face is far from insurmountable, and Europeans have experienced demographic collapse before during the Bubonic Plague and the industrial revolution (especially at lower levels of the social-economic ladder). That said, demographic replacement is far more serious. We need to re-establish strong majorities in our own countries and double quick.
Thanks for the note.
Thanks for the thorough reply.
Noted on the binary thinking, bad habit from my part, completely agreed on that point 1 too.