What Hitting Bottom will look like

The final dissolution before reintegration.

Readership: All
Length: 3,200 words
Reading Time: 11 minutes

In Hitting Bottom must be necessary (2020 November 6), I described how the West has been following a downward trajectory, not just for decades, but for centuries. I concluded that we must “hit bottom” at some point in the very near future.

Then, in December of last year, I saw a pattern of insights on this topic emerge across the Men’s Sphere. This post will pull these together to form what I believe is a prophecy for the West.

*       *       *       1       *       *       *

“…for those coming of age for marriage, America has become a social toxic wasteland. It’s bad enough that America is Western, with all the serious problems that can bring. Still, within that flawed system until recently, it was possible for good things to happen with romance. Those possibilities have now been reduced to a mere fragment, memories of quaint customs no longer tolerated.

All the most useful cues are gone, so that the process of getting to know someone well enough to fall in love has lost all the warmth. Romance is just about dead. It’s not that people no longer pair for sex, but that the vast majority never pair up for actual love and marriage.

The Men’s Red Pill movement is dying for a reason. It’s not that the study of what women are like has failed; fundamental truths about feminine nature that women once kept hidden in their own society have not changed. Women of the younger generations have begun to admit this stuff openly. But they do so only to confirm it as their right, with all the enforcement that comes with such a status. Soft manipulation becomes law. The common social expectations of these younger generations have dramatically shifted. The number of women still dreaming of romance has dramatically dropped to a tiny minority of the population. Such dreams are openly suppressed.

It would be easy to pass off this ugly shift as the influence of networking technology and how people interact with the virtual world. This is the age of technocracy. That much is patently true, but the question is: Do you understand it? Do you understand how things have shifted? The sheer power of this pervasive change in human orientation is bigger than most people in the older generations can comprehend. The momentum of this thing makes it utterly impossible to even think of rolling it back, or any part of it.”

“I feel sorry for the younger generations of men and women. They will have make their own way, and it looks like the system is flatly hostile to their needs. The only thing that can make life bearable is divine revelation, and that calls for disconnecting from this world in some measure. I can’t help them within their own realm of existence; they have to awaken a higher faculty. The genuine biblical path of a Christian family is truly alien to this world.”

Do What’s Right: Funeral for the Red Pill (2020 December 7)

Ed is right. The Red Pill addressed the problems and confusion in the Socio-Sexual/Marriage Marketplace (SSMMP) created by the Sexual Revolution and 3rd and 4th Wave Feminism, which were faced by late Boomers, Xers, and early Millennials. But over the past few years, the times have changed. Late Millennials and Zoomers have an entirely different SSMMP to contend with, and it’s pretty bleak.

Troy Francis gives one account in his post, The Death of Togetherness (2021 January 16).

Another putrid example is described in this video.

The Thinking Ape: Dutch Divorce Rate Skyrockets in Response to Alimony Reform (2019 December 14) Length: 10:22*

* H/T: Whores and Ale: The Plan Doesn’t Change, Just The Timetable (2020 December 8)

*       *       *       2       *       *       *

Nikolai Vladivostok offers an outline of these changes in his post, Am I Out of Touch? (2020 December 8). I’ve summarized his points as follows.

  • Cultural shifts surrounding love and mating.* First there was the 1960s free love movement. Then in the 2000s, women became more interested in getting an education and career before dating seriously so there was a shift from serial monogamy to casual dating and hook-ups. The next step was Tinder, which normalized meeting strangers online and having sex with them a short time later with limited preliminaries. The final step (so far) was the popularization of sugar baby sites and OnlyFans. Once you see this progression it starts to make more sense: the jump from 1950s kissing only on the third date to pro sugar baby is extreme, but the jump from Tinder hookups with strangers to similar hookups with a few gifts thrown in is not so great. Nor is the jump from sending badboys nudes to offering pics online for cash.
  • A rapidly evolving shift in the SMP. It’s gone from serial monogamy, to dating, to PUA Game, to Hookup, and then to Online Dating (OLD), which then had its own rapid shift from OK Cupid, to Tinder, to online amateur prostitution (OASIS, e.g. OnlyFans). This shift unfolded differently in different countries, but overall, sex has become routinely transactional, and talking to a stranger in public could get you arrested.
  • The SMP has become transactional. These days, an increasing number of men, out of desperation, are willing to pay $$$ simply to interact with a woman online. Women are now incentivized to regard both sex and sex appeal as a medium of financial exchange. This shifts the SMP to a whole new level of hypergamy, in which men are not only judged by their ability to induce the Tingles and perform in bed, but also to deliver $$$ and a preferred lifestyle. The bar has been raised so high, that now, women are utterly bored with common interactions with men.
  • Monetized Sexual Transactions. The theme for January at Σ Frame covered the Online Amateur Sex Industry and Socialization (OASIS). This rise in “compensated dating” has cemented the annihilation of the SMP as a potential MMP as it was in years past. Now, not only do a significant (but practically unknown) proportion of young women now have some form of soft p0rn modeling (e.g. Instagram) or soft prostitution (e.g. OnlyFans) in their past, some have become accustomed to being compensated and now expect it!
  • Feminine Empowerment is the Norm. Women have an unprecedented amount of power, and even if they haven’t taken the ticket, they know it’s there. This option has the effect of altering their bargaining position in a relationship, making them raise their standards unreasonably high. Why should an average young woman date Mr. Average gratis when another Mr. Average online is willing to stump up cash? Mr. Average without a short-time dowry may no longer be good enough.
  • A cultural religious movement has been afoot. It had its roots in 3rd Wave Feminism, then “The Great Awokening”, took off in 2013 and has been progressing rapidly since then. Previous to that year, feminism was a big thing but understanding sh!t tests and the true desires of women were enough to overcome anti-male conditioning. Since 2013 it’s been getting harder. You need to be very careful around university-indoctrinated Western women, whether you are approaching or in a relationship. The risk is not rejection – it is denunciation. See also, MeT00.

In sum, relation$hips are now centered around illicit sex and money, instead of faith, love, respect, companionship, sharing joy, and building a family within marriage.

* Nikolai Vladivostok calls this the Marginal Effect, meaning that things that happen in the margins of society slowly, then suddenly and quickly, become the new norm.

*       *       *       3       *       *       *

The next excerpt offers a Biblically based, metaphysical context for what has been described so far. I have condensed the content in the interests of reading time. Click on the link below to read the entire post.

1st Corinthians 11:3 can be drawn in the form of a word diagram:

God <- Jesus <- Man <- Woman

If there is no man between Jesus and the woman, then the woman looks to Jesus outside of a man’s authority, and that’s not always good as we read in Numbers 5:14-18 (NKJV). The essential thing is that the woman is under the husband’s authority. If necessary, the husband can bring the woman to the priest, and the priest stands the woman before Jesus, uncovering her head.

Isaiah 3:1-4 describes a time when the wisdom of the ancient and honorable is lost* and children are set as rulers. The result of this inverted state of affairs is oppression and chaos as verses 5-11 describe.

The next verse illustrates what happens when the proper hierarchy is overturned.

“My people — children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
O my people, your leaders mislead you, and confuse the course of your paths.”

Isaiah 3:12 (NRSV)

When things get bad enough, God judges the men first, especially the older men who are supposed to serve in leadership and guidance for the people and who, ultimately, are the cause of all of this. (See Isaiah 3:13-15.)

Since the women have been elevated to leadership, and there is no man between them and God, they are exposed to his direct judgment, and it is terrible. (See Isaiah 3:16-24.)

The judgment of the women is to make them experience and realize their shame. They have been operating outside of the covering of a man.

And what has been going on with the men? They die, and the city falls down. (See Isaiah 3:25 NRSV.)

Once the women are shamed and the unworthy men are dead, the people have hit rock bottom. [Note: women are already shamed and many men are “dead” in the figurative spiritual sense.] What is the way upwards? Isaiah tells us in the first verse of the next chapter.

“Seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying,

“We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes;
just let us be called by your name; take away our disgrace.”

Isaiah 4:1 NRSV

Food and clothing are two of the things a husband gives to his wife or wives as directed by Exodus 21:10.

10 ”If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the foodclothing, or marital rights of the first wife.”

Exodus 21:10 NRSV

What we are seeing here is that the shamed women realize they are in disgrace being outside of a man’s covering of authority. They are directly exposed to God’s judgment and it is terrifying. With so many men dead, they are tacitly willing to share a husband to get rid of the shame and be covered.

Once the proper hierarchy has been restored, then in Isaiah 4:2-6 (NRSV), the prophet paints out a beautiful picture of Mount Zion being covered by the Branch of the Lord via a canopy.

This is how Paul can say that the relationship between Jesus and His Body (the Church) is the same as the relationship between a husband and his wife. As the husband covers his wife, so the Messiah covers the ekklesia. We notice the language that Paul uses in Ephesians 5:22-27 — how a husband makes his wife holy by washing her with water is similar to the language of Isaiah where God washes away the filth of the daughters of Zion.

If we ponder the necessity of men covering the women like Jesus covers the daughters of Zion, then we understand why Paul so forcefully tells Timothy that forbidding marriage is a doctrine of devils when pushed by apostates when they depart from the faith. Indeed, if marriage is forbidden, then the only covering women have is their fathers. Forbidding marriage robs the women of the covering of husbands!(See 1st Timothy 4:1-4 NRSV.)

If our people only realized how intimately our faith is bound up and pictured by marriage, then getting biblical marriage right and men covering one or more women will lead to the glory of Zion as Isaiah described.

Source: Kol Yisrael Torah and Prophecy (Brian Somers): End Time Judgment of Men and Women: Isaiah 3-4 (2020 December 5)**

We’ve not yet reached this point, however, we can already see evidence of this happening in the margins. For an example, see Wintery Knight’s, Young Woman Regrets that Older People in Her Life were Dishonest with Her (2020 December 7).

* For an example of the wisdom and knowledge that has been almost entirely lost, read Dark Brightness: Marriage is for Raising Godly Children (2020 December 9).
** H/T: Pete Rambo at 11:3 Restoration.

*       *       *       4       *       *       *

When we strike bottom, the despair and despondency cause people to seek God once again. J.M. Smith and Alan Roebuck speak to us about this topic.

The most read Orthosphere post of all time is Alan Roebuck’s “Why You are Demoralized and What You Must Do About it,” which he published eight years ago, on June 8, 2012.

[…]

Alan tells us that three key spiritual nutrients have been withdrawn.  First and foremost is the firm conviction that there are such things as spiritual nutrients, and as a corollary to this, that there are such things as spiritual junk foods and poisons.  This key spiritual nutrient was withdrawn by the doctrine of tolerance, non-judgmentalism, and cultural relativism.  This doctrine states that each of us is free to choose our spiritual nutrients according to our own individual tastes.  Every “good” chosen is therefore equally good, from which it follows that none of them are really good at all.

As the doctrine of tolerance destroys belief in objective value—the belief that anything is absolutely true, good, or beautiful—there is an unsurprising proliferation of ugliness—of intellectual, moral, and aesthetic ugliness.  Truth, goodness and beauty are nutrients that revive the spirits of men and women.  Ugliness is the spiritual toxin that makes them feel a morbid desire to go and hang themselves from a rafter in the barn.

The dolor of this spiritual wasteland has been further deepened, Alan tells us, by a false and malevolent history that alienates us from our ancestors and our past.  He is speaking here particularly of white people and Western civilization.  When it comes to white people and Western civilization, the doctrine of tolerance and non-judgmentalism is suspended in favor of scathing judgments and resounding damnations.  It is hard for anyone to keep his pecker up in the spiritual wasteland, but it is especially hard when the loudspeakers boom that he is part of a cursed people that has been found wanting in the balance of history.  It is demoralizing to learn you are the world’s one and only unchosen people.

[…]

What you must do about your demoralization is reverse the process that demoralized you.  Think of it as spiritual detox.  You must:

  1. Reject relativism and recover a belief in objective truth, beauty and goodness. This begins by recovering a belief in the one true God that is described and worshiped in orthodox Christian religion.  There can be no spiritual absolutes if there is no spiritual absolute, and there certainly can be no spiritual absolutes if there is no spiritual.  If there is no one true God, we are all just wanking in the void.
  2. Reject tolerance and become judgmental and discriminatory. This does not mean persecutorial.  Spiritual tolerance for ugliness (the mendacious, the transgressive, the grotesque) is like physical tolerance for alcohol.  You will stop vomiting but go on destroying your liver.  When you are spiritually intolerant, you will avoid all forms of ugliness whenever you can, and you will curse them whenever you cannot.  When you cannot curse them out loud, you will curse them under your breath.
  3. Reject the poisoned myths of your enemies and keep faith with your fathers. This filial piety is not uncritical, but it is intensely jealous.  Alien criticism is either ignored or treated as casus belli.

Source: The Orthosphere (J.M. Smith): Acquiescence in Cuckoldry: An Excursus on Kristor’s Latest (2020 December 6)

These three steps are the point at which the individual man wakes up from the collective delusion and confusion, and a return to God and His ordained order begins to appear on the margins.

The Bible instructs us not to curse fellow believers, but to pray for them instead. But it’s a different story for the apostates of this age. It requires a strange balance – forgive them, and then curse them.

For a plethora of examples, read the faux news. On second thought, don’t bother!

*       *       *       5       *       *       *

Similar to my conclusions under the last epiphany, there will be some strange combinations of responsive actions that will be required by the faithful during these times. At first glance, it may seem like a conundrum with no good options, but in fact, it just requires some dirty politics which are currently frowned upon by polite, converged churchianity. NovaSeeker and I will be reviewing some of these crucibles of faith through the next couple months.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going!

Epilogue

I’m offering this post as a prophecy, but that doesn’t mean it will necessarily turn out as bad as described in Isaiah. If we recognize what is happening, and how far we have drifted from God’s ordained order, and then respond in such a way that these trends are dampened or upended, then we may avoid a descent to the bottom of the abyss and a total annihilation.

Even if most do not respond, God will grant those few who do an individualized dispensation of grace and mercy.

In order to avert this fate, the important thing for us to do, is to remove those elements which are most egregious to God, and to embrace those elements that are paramount to the Kingdom of God. The degree to which we do this, as a culture, will determine how much decadence and destruction we will see in the next decade or two.

What are these elements?

  • Get in touch with your heart. Pray and study the Bible. Get away from various addictions. Be sensitive to your convictions and act accordingly. (1st Corinthians 8)
  • Seek after the Kingdom of God and His righteousness by faith. (Matthew 6:33)
  • Find ways to worship, praise, and glorify God, and be thankful. (Psalm 145)
  • Embrace and defend God ordained gender roles. Men focus on their work. Women focus on the home and supporting their husband’s work. (Titus 2:1-8)
  • Exercise personal boundaries. Separate yourselves from those who are defiled, those who scheme, and those who practice lawlessness. (2 Corinthians 6:17) This includes not patronizing businesses and separating from individuals that endorse or support the same.
  • Pursue sanctification, i.e. sexual purity and covenantal marriage (i.e. Headship). (1 Thessalonians 4:3)
  • As much as possible, live in Shalom with your fellow man. (Romans 12:18) At a societal level, this means we must stop engaging in useless foreign conflicts.

I suggest pursuing these elements in the order given.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Addictions, Boundaries, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Communications, Conflict Management, Convergence, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Decision Making, Discernment, Wisdom, Enduring Suffering, Faith Community, Food, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Hypergamy, Internet Dating Sites, Introspection, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Perseverance, Prayer, Prophecy, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Stewardship, Strategy, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

124 Responses to What Hitting Bottom will look like

  1. SFC Ton says:

    Just walk away
    Lord Humungus circa 2004

    Roebuck’s 3 points are on target; point 3 will destroy the West even faster, specially the usa, which is both propping up and destroying the West in equal measure, but I doubt enough men have the moral courage to embrace some ugly historical truths

    Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      but I doubt enough men have the moral courage to embrace some ugly historical truths

      I don’t doubt for a second that this is true for the near term, but I wonder if in the long run most will have no choice but to embrace these truths as the ugly reality of today becomes too obvious and painful to continue ignoring.

      Like

  2. SFC Ton says:

    Ps

    We should not be at peace with our fellow man.

    We should be at war with the correct men. For a change

    Liked by 6 people

  3. Oscar says:

    What we are seeing here is that the shamed women realize they are in disgrace being outside of a man’s covering of authority. They are directly exposed to God’s judgment and it is terrifying.

    Let’s make one thing very clear, just in case. There are some lady preachers (cough Beth Moore! cough) who pretend to teach this doctrine, but in fact, do not.

    You’ve probably heard the saying that “submission means ducking so God can hit your husband”.

    Bullsh!t.

    If a woman has to “duck so that God can hit” her “husband”, that means she was standing in front of her husband, between her husband and God. That means she, not her husband, was serving as the head.

    In other words, those lady preachers are – surprise! – teaching the exact opposite of what the Bible says. They’re giving women all the authority (they stand between their husbands and God) with zero responsibility (they duck so God can hit their husbands).

    Remember; one who receives authority with zero responsibility becomes a tyrant. And that’s why we are where we are.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Elspeth says:

      Speaking of the SBC. Founders is the real deal, fighting the good fight:

      https://founders.org/2021/02/09/how-deep-the-rot-goes-female-pastors-and-the-sbc/

      Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        My contention with founders is that scripture commands them to not associate with the people they are calling out, who are also in the denomination.

        Their application of scripture is inconsistent. Rather than separate from these false teachers, they pretend they can associate with them and “save” them.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        @ Lexet:

        I suppose you think the pastors of Founders should leave the SBC? That would be the only way to completely disassociate with those they call out.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Yes.

        The SBC has been an open tent for far too long, and accepts female pastors, prosperity gospel advocates, etc. the idea that Rick warren, Beth Moore, David Jeremiah, and al mohler can exist in the same denomination is rather insane.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Founders is run and funded by people like rod Martin. Rod is a multi millionaire who sits on the RNC and several baptist committees, and is buddy buddy with people like Peter thiel. He endorses hacks like Ronnie Floyd.

        He was telling everyone that JD Greear was a conservative who would fight the leftist trends in the church, and that the convention was going to make drastic changes. Never happened.

        When it came to the RNC he was selling everyone on the idea that the right wing had firm control over it. Look how that turned out.

        My point being that the people who run the show are out of touch with reality.

        Ps, founders is also stacked with theonomists, and is overly friendly with Doug Wilson’s version of Christianity. The day to day pastors who are part of it are the types who were affiliating with sovereign grace ministries.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        @ Lexet:

        You are far more familiar with the inner workings of Founders than I am. When I think of Founders, I tend to think of Voddie Baucahm, Jared Longshore, and Tom Ascol, who fought stridently against the black SBC pastors who were trying to use CRT as a “tool” in the ‘Conversation” the church “needs to have” about “racial reconciliation”. He stood alone on that at convention, and held his ground.

        Other than that, I’m fairly ignorant compared to you. There is a conversation to be had about whether it is right to stay and fight for the truth and work to help those brethren of good faith to realize the error of allowing these forces a foothold in the denomination.

        We are not SBC, by the way. Had we not encountered Voddie Baucham, we would know very little about it.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Don’t get me wrong, Founders is fighting some good fights. My contention with them is from which direction they are swinging.

        From my perspective, the church is moving in a direction where it’s acceptable to align yourself with people of other faiths to fight certain doctrines. You have many different right wing groups in the SBC/Calvinist world who are willing to join with Catholics and Mormons to fight left wing trends. Their focus is American politics, not theology. If their focus was on theology, they would be seeking public rebuke and separation from others.

        Scripture doesn’t command that false churches be fought over and hijacked, or that believes suffer in them. It commands believers to leave and separate from that which is false.

        Outside of my stint in the PCA, most of the churches I attended had some connection to the SBC and some of its more notable figures, and many of the people I knew had some direct connection with them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        The SBC has been an open tent for far too long, and accepts female pastors, prosperity gospel advocates, etc. the idea that Rick warren, Beth Moore, David Jeremiah, and al mohler can exist in the same denomination is rather insane.

        I guess it’s what can happen when you’re a kind of “non-denomination denomination” like they are. Kind of seems like it’s best to go one way (actual denomination like some of the small conservative ones have done) or the other (indie). Halfway houses are by the nature going to be harder to keep pure.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      Any female “preacher” who tries to teach men, is already fully in rebellion against God’s teachings from the Bible.

      Early church father, Origen said: “Men should not sit and listen to a woman . . . even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.”

      For some reason I haven’t been able to “like” any comments here the last couple days. I’ve been trying to, but there is some sort of technical difficulty. So please just assume I like all your comments unless I say otherwise. LOL

      Liked by 3 people

  4. thedeti says:

    I wrote something about this at Spawny’s Space.

    https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2017/09/01/its-going-to-get-really-bad-for-men/

    I would add that in my opinion, current trends will continue. An important one will be the prevalence of OASIS and men using it. Just as more “Christian” women will become amateur prostitutes to pay the bills, more men (Christian or no) will use those prostitutes’ services to take care of their sexual needs. We should have expected this when we have a vast majority of Christian women having premarital sex and divorcing their husbands.

    This is a natural result of OASIS and women’s sexual behavior. Men should – SHOULD – simply have nothing to do with these women and let them all starve until they are brought to heel and come to relationships on men’s terms. But that won’t happen. What I think will happen is that women will rent out their bodies for a price, and men will negotiate and pay that price for sexual services. It won’t be like traditional prostitution where it’s 5, 6, 7 men a day. It will be more like a woman having one or two sugar daddies who give her some money in exchange for sex once or twice a week. Instead of taking on all comers, she will have only a couple of johns who will give her just enough money to make sure the bills get paid.

    The arrangement will be something like a husband and wife, except it’s not totally exclusive and they don’t live together. She gets all the benefits of “wife” without actually having to be one. All she has to do is provide some sex – as much sex as a typical husband would get. All he has to do is give her some money – maybe less than the money she’d get as a wife, but it’s still money. She has her job and doesn’t really need all of his income. And so he gets the benefits of being a husband without actually having to be one.

    Why should she marry him and live with him and put up with his crap to get his support, when all she has to do is have sex with him for a few hours a couple of times a week? Then, she doesn’t have to live with him or take care of him. Why should he marry her and live with her and put up with her crap just for some mediocre duty sex, when all she has to do is give one or two women some Benjamins every week and get better sex? Then, he doesn’t have to live with her or take care of her. All the benefits, none of the responsibilities.

    The drawbacks are that these “sugar” relationships are volatile and unstable. When she finds someone willing to pay a higher rent price, she cuts him loose. If he finds someone he likes better or for less money, he ghosts. They’re fraught with distrust and suspicion. You have no expectation of any fidelity. STDs will increase.

    What happens when these women want kids? They’ll have one or two, on their own, which will increase their needs. A much larger number of men will never become fathers, at least not in the traditional sense. If they do, however, they will be reduced further to the level of sperm donors and payers. Their sole function is to sire the child and then give money to the mother for its support.

    Women will increasingly be in the power position. If they want to do online only, no touch no contact, there will be men willing to pay for that. Men who don’t want that will have to take what they can get. Or, simply do without.

    Men will do what they have to do to get the sex they want. That is one of the main things that will drive this. If they have to marry, they will. If they have to pay, they will. If they have to do it online, they will.

    Men could pressure this whole thing by walking away en masse. No attention. No time. No fidelity. And no money. A lot of women would fall in line. Here’s why – these women are doing this because they need the money. They can’t make ends meet even with their jobs and welfare and child support from baby daddies/ex husbands. Most OASIS women aren’t Belle Delphine or W from Nova’s well written posts. They’re just working women trying to supplement their incomes. This market would collapse overnight if the consumers stopped consuming it. But they will not, because increasingly, men are finding the only way to get any sexual attention at all is to rent it. They can’t marry. They’re not attractive enough. No one will want to marry them. More and more women aren’t marrying or are pushing marriage out as far as they can.

    Traditional marriage will continue as the province of the upper middle class on up, to conserve and consolidate increasingly sparse resources. There will be more infidelity among that set, and it will be as discreet as necessary. There will be more infidelity simply because the participants can, and there is so much emphasis on sex now.

    The bottom will fall out when men and women have no choice but to turn to God. We all get there at some point.

    Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Sometimes they don’t need the money to literally survive but with a 2nd (husband’s income) they can have a bigger house, a better car, etc. and women tend to want the best, materially.

      Many still want a husband – that psychological need is still there – they will just end up settling based on their unrealistic expectations and that’s where the trouble begins.

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        I know that this is a stupid question, but I wonder if any pastors are aware of the OnlyFans trend and are addressing it from the pulpit?

        Sorry, but just HAD to ask…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scavos says:

        @feeriker

        Doubtful, at least in my church. I brought this up to some men, including a pastor. Had to give some a description of the site. Their response: “You shouldn’t be going there.”
        facepalm

        Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Why should she marry him and live with him and put up with his crap to get his support, when all she has to do is have sex with him for a few hours a couple of times a week? Then, she doesn’t have to live with him or take care of him. Why should he marry her and live with her and put up with her crap just for some mediocre duty sex, when all she has to do is give one or two women some Benjamins every week and get better sex? Then, he doesn’t have to live with her or take care of her. All the benefits, none of the responsibilities.

      Indeed. The relationship is less like prostitution than it is like a simulated/compensated relationship. This is key, because for both people — the man and woman — it is, at its base, a transaction, but the transaction-ness is “covered” by a simulated relationship that makes the transaction element less obvious and therefore the whole arrangement less unpleasant.

      So a prostitute has a very “transactional practice” as a lawyer would say. She is holed up in a hotel room or a safe house she goes in on with other working girls (almost none do it from their residence for obvious reasons) and gets paid by the hour (or two, or three). The guy arrives, there are some preliminaries, money is provided, sex occurs, he leaves before the timer runs out. Noone discusses the transaction openly, to avoid legal issues, but the entire thing is extremely transactional for both. And for the “john”, the entire thing is about “urge satisfaction” — he’s there to satisfy an urge, and once the urge is satisfied, he’s done. Very transactional.

      A sugar is a simulated girlfriend. She works out of her residence, goes on real dates with her guys, sometimes goes on trips with them, texts them every day back and forth, holds hands/other PDA in public and so on. And of course sex is in the mix, but it isn’t transactional like a hooker is. It’s embedded into the simulated girlfriend “gauze”, such that the underlying transactional nature of the thing remains hidden and the “feel” is that of a girlfriend. The money flows automatically via venmo or paypal or something, and otherwise the guy spends on dates like a guy like him probably would for non-sugar situations as well, and so it doesn’t feel to either of them like it’s hooking. To the man it feels like a GF, and this can be enhanced the better the woman is at faking it, which is itself enhanced by how much she likes the guy’s personality (the best sugars apparently select men on that basis so that they can relate to them better and provide the fake GF thing more effectively). The woman is getting paid for her efforts, of course, and that is her main motive, but there are other ones, too — she gets experiences from it, like travel, eating at exclusive places, expensive gifts and so on that she likes. If she plays her cards right, she gets pampered by her guy(s). And almost all women like being pampered. So it isn’t really that much like prostitution, in “feel”, for either party — at least in the “classic” sugar situations (undoubtedly the main sugar sites like “seeking arrangement” are actually sites where people make all kinds of deals with each other, some of them like the classic sugar one I have just described, and other ones more like simple hooking, and everything in between).

      The problem here is that this is … really problematic. Prostitution was never a substitution for relationships, for obvious reasons. Sugaring …. well that’s exactly what it is, at least in the “classic sugar” case, and that’s super troubling.

      This market would collapse overnight if the consumers stopped consuming it. But they will not, because increasingly, men are finding the only way to get any sexual attention at all is to rent it. They can’t marry. They’re not attractive enough. No one will want to marry them. More and more women aren’t marrying or are pushing marriage out as far as they can.

      Yes.

      I sense other things are coming, too. Women will find ways to have children, increasingly without men. Either by pairing resources between themselves, having “nontraditional” families with one man siring and another caring for (not necessarily simultaneously), going “soft lesbian”, living with another woman where the relationship is sometimes sexual but mostly just typical female affectionate (as most actual lesbians themselves appear to settle into in their own long term relationships, as is well documented by the “lesbian bed death” phenomenon). Men will similarly seek other sexual options. Don’t for a minute think that the incessant pushing of homosexuality and transgenderism everywhere (in the schools, in the culture as a whole and, importantly (sad that it’s important, but in this context … it is) in porn which is sexually forming them) isn’t going to have impacts, generationally, on boys as well as girls, such that increasing numbers of boys are going to be having sex with each other, and/or opting to become “transgirls” if they are less than optimally masculine as teenagers.

      All kinds of fun to look forward to in the decades ahead, folks. Sexuality is a massive force, a promethean one. Put it together with modern technology and a culture hell-bent, literally, on a demonic drive towards full sexualization of all things, and you get the current scenario, which is still just in the “getting started” stages.

      Buckle up.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        It’s not transactional sex. The men merely give a charitable contribution they don’t have to report to the IRS. Consummation of the friendship then ensues.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Scott says:

    War, violence, injustice, genocide, immense suffering are the norm in human history

    This blip of realively easy street, peace, prosperity that we have lived on in the grand scheme of human existence will come to an end.

    Liked by 5 people

    • thedeti says:

      Nasty, short, and brutish.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        My dad was 5-9 years old during the axis occupation of Yugoslavia

        Dead soldiers lying around on the farm
        Going into town with my grandpa and seeing townspeople hanging from buildings to teach everyone a lesson
        After the war he himself being tortured in Tito’s re-education camp

        That was one generation ago.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        I was 3-4 years old when my siblings and I crawled from our abuelita’s house to our house with bullets flying everywhere because the civil war reached our little town. Most of my friends in Los Angeles were Vietnamese boat people. We all wanted to enlist and go “kill a Commie for mommy”.

        The misery of the state of nature only skipped a few places, and only temporarily.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Scott, Oscar

        People in the US have no idea what war looks like.

        Liked by 4 people

  6. feeriker says:

    People in the US have no idea what war looks like.

    BINGO. Unless they’ve served in the military in a war zone, which is a miniscule percentage of the population. That’s why both neocon and liberal loudmouths are the biggest advocates of war; they know that THEY will never have to fight one. All of that is about to change as Civil War II gets underway here. If you’ve read of listened to the various news outlets of late, all opinion polls show that both sides of the ideological divide believe war, violence, and extreme bloodshed on U.S. soil are now inevitable.

    Liked by 1 person

    • SFC Ton says:

      Even when someone has been down range I’m 100% certian it doesn’t have the full impact on most men. #1 a large number of people down range never leave their safe space.

      For the people who do, think these things can’t happen to them, won’t happen here etc etc seems to me it takes 2 or 3 trips for certain lessons to sink in

      Humanity seems to get by on a whole lot of cognitive disassosation

      I think another factor in this it will never happen here deal is how we as a people gloss over our own history. Which has a ton of violent poltical and ethnic classes.

      Like

  7. horsemanbombadil says:

    This cycle all assumes that there is sufficient resources in the system for the payers (men) to be able to afford the services from the providers (women). Also assumes the market does not get saturated by over supply (the immense onlyfans signup). In either of these situations the going price the services can set compared to the competition falls below what the feasibilty point (the womans bills).

    When rent and mortgage forbearance ends and the various unemployment ends, the resources of the men will not support their oasis habit. Sex is after all below hunger and shelter on the needs scale. What happens in any market when the market base shifts or contracts?

    Even if the system is sustainable resource wise, it is time sensitive. Men can be payers until they die or run out of money. But women as oasis providers? Natural time out at …..? And as it gets more and more common alternative to other work or relationships, the market self floods with every woman offering oasis. Even the bbw, mature fetish markets have a limited size. And so the age/looks limit where one can charge for oasis gets shorter and shorter.

    Either way the system fails in the end for women. The main outcome of marriage was to provide resources for women for the three decades after menopause when their market value in oasis or childbearing is negligible.

    The only reason outside a legal contract (divorce) to pay a lost menopausal woman is wife goggles aka loyalty or real emotional affection for the person not the sex object.

    This type of transactional exchange does not breed such emotion.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. horsemanbombadil says:

    The greatest mistake in all this was relieving men of the burden of performance.

    Now men are “free” to only work as hard as necessary for his personal desires. Some will work hard for self fulfilment. Similarly there has always been slackers.

    In the past various social lies; fatherhood, husbandhood, community standing, etc pushed the median man to work far beyond the cost of his personal transactions. Now that is laid bare. Food, shelter, housekeeping, transportation, now sex are all transactions. His transaction.

    What single person needs a four bedroom house? Two cars? Lots of shoes?

    Men will set their spending on their needs alone. And work to that level.

    All of the women’s needs (and their children’s) now compete with his food or drink budget. Just another expense.

    I don’t care how hot she is, how great and frequent the sex is to cost me the difference between the mortgage on a four bedroom house versus a two bedroom apartment.

    So Ms. Not my wife, my sex budget is 300 a month, does that cover your expenses? Because I don’t care about you as a person, your problems are not mine.

    P.s. same works for taxes. The government can only collect income taxes proportional to the man’s income level. Again what incentive to work harder to pay taxes for strangers I don’t know nor care about. Sure you added a 2% bachelor tax but I took a 40k a year job when I qualify for a 60k job. Why? Because 40k covers my expenses for me and me alone.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. horsemanbombadil says:

    Within 1 year of the last kid leaving home I downsized from a four bedroom mortgaged house to a rented 2 bedroom cottage. I quit a 6 figure government job to work as a tradesman clearing maybe 30k. Less property tax, interest, income tax, etc.

    Why?

    Because I Could.

    They have shown men what they can do.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      If I didn’t still have young kids I’d go from full time to either 3 quarters or maybe half time. Say a guy makes $100K a year, it’s easy to live on 75K or even 50K unless you have kids. I spend my off days fishing or going to the rifle range.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. SFC Ton says:

    People in the US have no idea what war looks like.
    ……..

    For the now

    And sort of.

    Folks got a taste this summer. We’ll see how things play out when it gets warm. If things get spun up sh!t will get bad. Mostly becuase the cops are near on useless and normies are normies

    Liked by 2 people

  11. whiteguy1 says:

    I’ve never been to the sandbox/rock pile, but I’ve got buddies who’ve been there. I personally had my eyes opened back in 1998, working as a young buck for a oil company in the lovely resort town of Luanda, Angola. The civil war was just wrapping up and I got to see, hear, and smell, what 1.5 million people living with infrastructure designed for 125,000 people…And I even got to see how people live who wandered too close to a landmine…not pretty.

    Spending time in a 3rd world african sh!thole for any length of time really does bring clarity in what the world is really like. We live in Disneyland, and I would say 97% of the country doesn’t even know it.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Random Angeleno says:

    The greatest mistake in all this was relieving men of the burden of performance.

    Men weren’t relieved of the burden; when they had no recourse, they relieved themselves of the burden. Why would they do that? Read you some Dalrock; he wrote many articles around different aspects of this. But it comes down to this: why should a man consent to being a draft mule to support a woman who wants nothing to do with him?

    Liked by 5 people

  13. Jeff Barnes says:

    Jack, I wrote a reply to your comment to me on your article Masculine Dilemma I would like you to read. Thanks for sharing that Orthosphere post, great stuff.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. feeriker says:

    Had to give some a description of the [OnlyFans] site. Their response: “You shouldn’t be going there.”
    facepalm

    Churchians doing what churchians do best: ignoring evil, pretending not to see it so that they don’t have to take a stand against it.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Oscar says:

      Which eventually leads to siding with evil.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Scavos says:

      “Churchians doing what churchians do best: ignoring evil, pretending not to see it so that they don’t have to take a stand against it.”

      Unless, of course, it’s easy and the culture praises them for “taking a stand.”

      Liked by 5 people

  15. Oscar says:

    Very Much On-Topic: Here we go, dudes.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/unity-on-civil-war-both-sides-see-us-headed-for-bloodshed

    There were differences in opinion when it came to age-younger voters aged 18-29 (53% likely and 39% unlikely) and aged 18-24 (51% likely and 41% unlikely) were much more prone to think we were headed for civil war than older voters aged 65+ (31% likely and 55% unlikely).

    Interesting that the young men most likely to fight Civil War II are the most likely to see it coming. Also…. freaking Boomers.

    For once, political parties-Republicans (49% likely and 40% unlikely), Democrats (45% likely and 44% unlikely), and Independents (42% likely and 44% unlikely) were somewhat in agreement, but the fact all political stripes think a civil war is inevitable is not the bipartisanship we were hoping for. Most of the sub-groups surveyed were in line with the overall figures, especially when it came to breakdowns of intensity-very likely/somewhat likely/somewhat unlikely/very unlikely.

    It’s also interesting that Republicans are the most likely to see civil war coming, given that Republicans tend to be older, and people over 65 were least likely to see civil war coming. That tells me that younger Republicans are absolutely convinced it’s coming.

    People in large cities (55% likely and 38% unlikely) were much more likely to think the country will have another civil war than respondents living in the suburbs (36% likely and 48% unlikely).

    I’m not at all surprised that people in large cities see civil war coming. Civil wars are like earthquakes. They break out along fault lines (race, ethnicity, religion, politics, class, etc.). The closer you live to the fault lines, the greater the intensity. Big cities are full of fault lines.

    Voters in the East region (39% likely and 44% unlikely) were much less likely to think we would have another civil war compared with respondents in the Central/Great Lakes region (48% likely and 43% unlikely) and South region (49% likely and 39% unlikely).

    Voters in the East region are delusional.

    When it came to race, whites (43% likely and 44% unlikely) were not as convinced that there will be another civil war, while Hispanics (53% likely and 43% unlikely) and African Americans (49% likely and 39% unlikely) thought another civil war could happen.

    A lot of us Hispanics fled civil war, so yeah, of course we see it coming now.

    Get out of the cities, brothers and sisters. Get out to the country, preferably in a red state, preferably in a red county. Get to know your neighbors. Build a community. Hard times are coming.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Here’s where I give my speech. I don’t want Civil War which is a contest over control of a particular government. I want separation from the left. I want a divorce. If I’m caught, geographically, on the wrong side I’ll pick up my family and move – north, south, east, west. We can both pay into a common fund to relocate people caught on the wrong side. Split up the nukes so that cold war MAD works.

      Yeah I know, the left is the elite oligarchs, whatever. There’s tens, maybe a hundred plus million of my fellow citizens who believe leftist horsesh!t. I don’t want to rule over them with 51% of the vote. I don’t want to rule over them at all. I want them to have their own country so they can’t do my family harm and so I can sit back, pop some popcorn and watch their side fall apart without adult supervision, with encouraging riots, “empowering” women, promoting trans freaks, whatever.

      May God grant us an amicable divorce.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        re: civil war.

        You guys who are in the military, tell me — what is the political alignment of the NCOs and officer corps currently? It seems to me that in order to have an actual civil war, based on all of the other civil wars I have reviewed in history, the military needs to split credibly — that is, not 90/10. Not necessarily 50/50, but there has to be a credible split, and it has to involve at least enough of the command slice such that you have a viable top to bottom force. How does that look given what you see in today’s military? Again, not among enlisted, but among the command slice. This is a critical piece of any assessment of civil war, because without that there won’t be one, imo.

        re: partition and resettlement,

        Hate to say it, but these tend to be VERY NASTY on the bloodshed scale. India comes to mind. Eastern Europe end of WW2 comes to mind. Turns out that quite a few folks realize, in a scenario like that, that it isn’t actually sensible to allow people who dislike you enough to leave where you live and live in a place comprised of people who dislike you to do so unmolested, since they will contribute to the force of a neighboring hostile state … so the people who are “relocating” themselves tend to get killed fairly often, and often in dramatically brutal ways as the passion of division based on mutual hatred plays itself out. In large numbers. Brutal, but makes for cleaner “subsequent history”. I doubt that any partition in the USA would go any differently, especially because we would never get to the point of having a very unlikely partition without having a rather bloody war preceding it, with all of the violent passion for vengeance that would stir up coming to the fore.

        Even leaving aside that “issue”, personally I don’t see partition in the cards. The US is far too messily divided. There are red states and blue states, but the broader reality is that everywhere the cities tend to be blue and everywhere else tends to be red, so the national problem is replicated everywhere. It’s not as if the cities in Texas are going to be happy in a red successor state, for example, any more than the rural people in NY or OR will be happy living in East or West Wokistan. I just don’t see the country agreeing to separate unless and until there were so much bloodshed already that it was the only way out of a literal ocean of blood. And I am not rooting for that, personally.

        Michael Vlahos, a professor at SAIS who is, I would say, a moderate, sees three outcomes for our current predicament (https://www.anewcivilwar.com/post/civil-war-death-match-between-continuity-and-change ): (1) secession (what we’re discussing here), (2) Blue Triumph (i.e., they win, generationally, and stability returns under a new, left, consensus) and (3) mild reaction (i.e., a slow, mild return to pre-Trump with reforms designed to discourage repeats).

        From where I am sitting (2) seems by far the most likely outcome unless … we are very certain that there are enough among the command slice in the military who would think and do otherwise. I doubt that there are, but I do not know how the officer level currently looks and thinks well enough to accurately judge that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Nova, Cameron, Oscar

        I seriously question whether this populace has the stomach for a national divorce, whatever form that takes. Whether it’s done through military force or through partition and resettlement, it means:

        –a lot of people will lose everything they have and become refugees

        –a lot of people’s homes and businesses will be totally destroyed

        –a lot of people will lose a lot of family members to hostilities, air raids, bombings, house to house guerrilla combat, etc.

        I’m sitting here asking myself:

        Am I ready to watch my son conscripted into military service and die?

        Am I ready for news my daughter was killed in a bombing at her boyfriend’s house?

        Am I ready to come home to a bombed out house and find my wife’s body in the rubble?

        Am I ready to be lined up against a wall and shot?

        Because for a lot of us, something like that is GOING to happen when this country is divvied up.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        I mean, think about it.

        Most people in this country don’t own even one firearm. More than than have never really seriously handled a firearm and wouldn’t know the first thing about how to do so. They’ve never had a gun pointed at them. They’ve never been in a fight. They’ve never taken a punch or thrown one. They’ve never seen anyone get shot. They’ve never seen anyone die, not even an elderly person die of natural causes.

        They’ve never had to survive without basic services, not even a few days and nights. We lose our sh!t when the power goes out for a few hours and the internet is down. We cancel school and send everyone home when there’s a 3 inch snowfall now. As a nation, we are a bunch of p*ssies. We’re fat, soft, out of shape, and spoiled rotten. We aren’t prepared to weather even the most basic hardships, even ones my parents handled 40 years ago when they were raising me.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Nova

        what is the political alignment of the NCOs and officer corps currently?

        Up to the field grade ranks (brigade commander and below, in Army speak), the troops are mostly right wing (I’m not even sure if that’s the accurate terminology anymore), but they’re normies. They don’t realize how far the rot has infected the USA.

        Above the field grade ranks (the generals), you get a lot of ticket-takers. I’d say the majority. I think Mike Flynn was an exception, and that’s probably why they tried to destroy him.

        I think a lot of the changes to the military (women in combat roles, LGBTQ+, etc.) are specifically intended to discourage right wing (for lack of a more accurate term), Christian men from serving, and encourage those who serve to leave. They’re trying to build a “blue” military.

        Even leaving aside that “issue”, personally I don’t see partition in the cards. The US is far too messily divided.

        The same was true of Yugoslavia. That’s why I think Civil War II will look more like the Yugoslavian civil war than CWI. Sarajevo was once hailed as a multicultural, multiethnic example for the world to follow. Orthodox, Catholics, and Muslims of multiple ethinicities, and political persuasions lived side-by-side in peace and harmony…. until they didn’t.

        The fault lines gave way, and streets and alleys literally became borders that shifted constantly with shifting alliances.

        Yugoslavia did, eventually, separate. And that’s been a good thing.

        I just don’t see the country agreeing to separate unless and until there were so much bloodshed already that it was the only way out of a literal ocean of blood. And I am not rooting for that, personally.

        None of us want that, brother. But, I think that’s what’s coming.

        People will sort themselves one way or another, either voluntarily, or by force. It’s better to self-sort voluntarily earlier, rather than later by force.

        Two HUGE differences between Yugoslavia, and the USA.

        Yugoslavia was made up of ancient ethinicities with ancient homelands. They just went back to the way things were before they were forced together by outside empires. We don’t really have that here.
        The USA is enormous. It spans a whole continent. We have states that are bigger than most countries. I live in Missouri, and it’s bigger than my native country. There’s plenty of room for people to separate from each other. There will be lots of places with little or no violence, because they’re far from the fault lines.

        When things get really bad, people in the cities will either leave, or get forced out. It’s going to be ugly. Better to sort ourselves now. You don’t want to be the new guy in town when things get really bad, and no one trusts outsiders anymore.

        Scott had the right idea.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        They’re trying to build a “blue” military.
        Hasn’t the Sec of Defense issued a 60 day “stand down” to “discuss the problem of extremism and extremist ideology in the ranks”?
        I’m guessing that’s not about BLM and antifa. They’re trying to see how extensive the “extremist” conservatism runs.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “Most people in this country don’t own even one firearm.”

        I have plenty to loan to them.

        I live in a county with a lot of active duty and retired, many recently. From what I can tell, the guys who are good at making people’s heads pop at hundreds of yards are disproportionately Right not Left but who knows.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “From where I am sitting (2) seems by far the most likely”

        Best guess is they wouldn’t want us to separate. According to them, we’re awful, so you’d think they’d be glad to get rid of us. Nope for some obvious reasons.

        We would be free if we decided to make life on this continent unlivable until they agree to cut us loose but we have to have the balls to take the risk.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Liz

        Hasn’t the Sec of Defense issued a 60 day “stand down” to “discuss the problem of extremism and extremist ideology in the ranks”?
        I’m guessing that’s not about BLM and antifa. They’re trying to see how extensive the “extremist” conservatism runs.

        That’s correct, I think. Back in 2013, when I was in Afghanistan, the Obama administration published a profile of what a potential terrorist looks like. It was….

        Military veteran
        Combat experience
        White
        Male
        Christian

        That tells you whom they’re trying to purge. Guess who fits those “indicators”? Scott, Ton, feeriker, even I do. Now we have “multicultural whiteness”, so even a black man, if he fits the other indicators, could be considered “white”.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/15/understand-trumps-support-we-must-think-terms-multiracial-whiteness/

        I was talking to my wife recently about how the Soviet Union used to have Political Officers at every command level, from Company up. The Political Officer’s job was to ensure that the unit Commander toed the Communist Party line. The Political Officer could override any decision the unit Commander made.

        I told my wife that we’ll soon have Political Officers in the US Armed Forces. Then, I realized, we already do. They’re called SHARP Coordinators, or EO/EEO Officers, etc.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Yep. I don’t identify as an American. I refuse to recognize those in the west and northeast as my countrymen.

        Like

      • horsemanbombadil says:

        @oscar
        I served two tours in Yugo including the siege of the airport. Pray to whatever gods you have it is not a repeat. No lines of control, no definable territories, not even colours of the combatants. Worse was the open targetting of women and children. Sniping into a group on the street just because.
        At least the middle East the warlords and their territories could be identified. Yugo was literally family against family, neighbor against neighbor. Assumed targetting by what someone thought you looked like.
        If your life depended on it could you identify a Biden supporter from a Harris supporter from a pence supporter from someone just going out for milk: each on wearing a plain t shirt and jeans? Each openly carrying. Each pissed off? And do it a hundred feet out behind a burned out car? That was what being a blue beanie in Yugo was like.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ horsemanbombadil

        Welcome, Canuckistani!

        I served two tours in Yugo including the siege of the airport. Pray to whatever gods you have it is not a repeat. No lines of control, no definable territories, not even colours of the combatants. Worse was the open targetting of women and children. Sniping into a group on the street just because.

        At least the middle East the warlords and their territories could be identified. Yugo was literally family against family, neighbor against neighbor. Assumed targetting by what someone thought you looked like.

        Sadly, that’s pretty much what I anticipate for large American cities.

        If your life depended on it could you identify a Biden supporter from a Harris supporter from a pence supporter from someone just going out for milk: each on wearing a plain t shirt and jeans? Each openly carrying. Each pissed off? And do it a hundred feet out behind a burned out car?

        Not a chance. That’s why I advised my fellow readers to move to places where they can surround themselves with likeminded people. Places far away from the fault lines (race, ethnicity, religion, politics, etc.), and/or with few internal fault lines will see a lot less violence. Possibly none.

        That was what being a blue beanie in Yugo was like.

        Thanks for adding your input. I never served in the former Yugoslavia, so all my knowledge comes from books. Croatia is pretty sweet these days, which gives me hope for the future.

        Like

    • SFC Ton says:

      That last thing we need is more city folks moving to the country

      They are like a plague of locusts and are ruining our way of life.

      Let them all die in the sh!t holes they created. One of the lessons this summer should have been city folks moving into the country and yankees moving South are part of what is driving us to our 1st civil war.

      Like

  16. feeriker says:

    You guys who are in the military, tell me — what is the political alignment of the NCOs and officer corps currently?

    While I’ll defer on this question to those here who have more recent active duty experience than I have, my short answer to your question is … that’s a good question. In my 20 years of active duty (which ended at the end of the last century) this was a subject that never came up for serious discussion. In part this was do to the fact that socioeconomic and political conditions had not deteriorated to the point where they are now and there was no real incentive to seriously consider the possibility of civil war or secession, especially not as they might affect the armed forces. Also, this is NOT the sort of thing people on active duty generally discuss openly with one another. If there is anything that the U.S. armed forces command structure is hyper-sensitive to, it is the danger of mutiny or rebellion in the ranks or the threat of a politicized force that might be at some point prone to mutiny or rebellion. This has the effect of keeping any discussions of the type surrounding your question restricted to off-duty house party talk among only one’s most trusted comrades who one is certain shares one’s own philosophical or political beliefs.

    That said, I have no idea where those who make up the current force stand, but you’ve probably seen me ask questions like this dozens of times over the last couple of years, both on other manosphere blogs and on my own. If anyone has any insights I’d love to hear them.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      In 1993 a command survey was given at fort hood inquiring whether officers would enforce national gun confiscation. I believe it was army wide. The results would be completely different if taken today.

      Like

  17. feeriker says:

    I seriously question whether this populace has the stomach for a national divorce, whatever form that takes.

    I think you’re generally correct in that the majority will continue to make “bread and circuses” the center of their lives until the Elites are simply no longer able to keep the show going. Once they have to face ugly reality and survive, only then might they belatedly discover freedom and real living and fight for what it takes to attain it. I know I’m being optimistic here, but given that humans are hardwired to act in their own self interest for their own preservation, this leaves hope that large numbers will eventually see the light.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      The third world has a tremendous advantage over us: they are used to the elements, and don’t rely on refrigeration. Modern homes and life are literally built in a way where they aren’t functional without electricity or gas.

      Let’s say there is a rebellion. The first step the government should take would be to shut down the internet for that region, cut phone lines, and cut the power grid. Shut down the highways. Essentially a siege. People would be given an ultimatum- turn people over or live under these conditions.

      Many judases will rise up

      Liked by 3 people

  18. Scott says:

    Nova

    Your question, and whatever the answer is is precisely why all the stupid things people say about how “you can’t fight the us military with all its fighter planes, aircraft carriers, tanks, nuclear weapons with yoir stupid AR 15” annoy me.

    The only chance the one side has over the other is if enough high echelon commanders can build a dissenting military force around the principles of confirming to their oaths.

    Then you would have entire divisions and corps at war with each other

    An aircraft carrier air strike group (CAG) for example is the navy equivalent of an army brigade combat team (BCT). That’s an 0-6 billet

    A corps (three stars) is about the level you need this di happen.

    Otherwise it’s just academic

    We don’t know the answer to that question.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      Man I hate trying to type complex things on my “smart” phone.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “you can’t fight the us military with all its fighter planes, aircraft carriers, tanks, nuclear weapons with yoir stupid AR 15”

      If someone would have just explained that to the Taliban….

      Liked by 5 people

      • feeriker says:

        THREAD WINNER!!! 😆😅👍👍

        Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL and it would be easier here state side

        Well in certian respects.

        Them cats running Grey Eagles are pretty safe down range. They are on the safe side of the wire and their familes are 1000’s of miles away from hajjis.

        State side? Well the people in uniform and maybe their immediate familes would be “safe” on a military base. Their siblings, parents etc etc won’t be

        But the us military will do the total war thing against us mostly White insurrectionists

        Can’t do such things to hajjis because of political correctness. It would A-OK state side.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Back when I worked in the oil field, I had a long conversation about this with some of my buddies. The oil field is full of rednecks, and these guys were no exception. They asked me about the possibility of ordinary Americans fighting a modern military.

        I told them that insurgents don’t have to win battles. They just have to sow chaos in the enemy’s ranks. You already know how to do that.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I need a few guys willing to die while destroying fuel tanks and taking out engines on the flight line. A bunch of unarmed protesters at the front gate. The rest will take a nice stroll in off base housing communities.

      Hostages for planes program.

      Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Let’s say there is an outbreak of civil war here. Within 30 minutes China would have destroyed our pacific fleet and blitzed Taiwan. Iran would light sh!t up in the Arabian Sea. Americans in Korea would be fighting for their lives.

      Russia would make moves to threaten nato and keep American forces in Europe neutered.

      The effect: the navy would be in a defensive position for the homeland. Deployed troops would have to evacuate to larger bases, but be stuck in theater. Same with units deployed in England, Italy, and Germany.

      I actually think a 3 party division would take place, with the third faction being a neutral party, and most likely be elements controlling and protecting strategic forces at offut, barksdale, minot, and Bangor.

      With this in mind, I think the most realistic scenario is the majority of the armed forces stands down, doesn’t engage anything, and only exists as a security force, while officers with no commands in the pentagon play musical chairs with office space, not realizing they are the most likely scapegoats for retribution in the end. I imagine that those in power would quickly make deals so that the armed forces and our military might is not jeopardized.

      Liked by 1 person

      • horsemanbombadil says:

        Every other power held back from picking on their ancient enemy would pounce the second the u.s. had an internal conflict.
        S. Korea..Gone. Israel gone unless they nuke. Czech and the Baltics back to Russia. Maybe they keep rolling into Germany or beyond. Pakistania have at each other.
        South America will probably be ok only because they have little military.
        N. America will be interesting. Will Mexico flood north to take lands or go home to abandon the dream of a better life in the now Mexico like u.s?
        Us Canucks will stay out of it but will neutral Americans flee north to us?
        Pretty much those who are geographically isolated will be ok like Au, UK,

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Israel will never be out of the picture. Aside from that, yep.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Israel gone unless they nuke.

        Israel will stay if God wants them to stay, and go if God wants them to go. I anticipate the events of Ezekiel 37-39.

        Will Mexico flood north to take lands or go home to abandon the dream of a better life in the now Mexico like u.s?

        I think Mexico will have its own issues. The US is a safety valve for Mexico’s – and Central America’s – internal troubles. With the safety valve broken, all kinds of crap could go wrong.

        Us Canucks will stay out of it

        I have a feeling you’ll get sucked in.

        but will neutral Americans flee north to us?

        Probably. And you’ll probably stop letting them after a while.

        Pretty much those who are geographically isolated will be ok like Au, UK,

        China will probably make a play for Australia and New Zealand. The UK has all kinds of internal troubles. The worldwide economic instability caused by an American civil war will probably exacerbate those troubles.

        Like

  19. Elspeth says:

    Tangentially related. Countries around the world are realizing that America is exporting our toxic and divisive ideas to their countries, and they are not happy. It’s almost like the entire Western world is on the verge of coming apart, thanks to us.

    France is complaining (This was a NYT piece originally but paywall so I found it on American Renaissance):

    https://www.amren.com/news/2021/02/will-american-ideas-tear-france-apart-some-of-its-leaders-think-so/

    Even some aboriginals in Australia are complaining about racial witch hunts and people hell bent on finding racism where none exists. We, in America, have done this.

    What is happening here is bigger than just us. This is ultimately a spiritual battle, but like Freeriker, I am fairly certain that there are enough people who will resist that it could get ugly.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Oscar says:

      The rot began in Europe with Marxism, then Cultural Marxism, then French “philosophers” like Michel Foucault (Queer Theory) and Simone de Beauvoir (feminism), but it took root most successfully here. That’s not a coincidence.

      Until the WWI, Europe was the prize. But, WWI devastated Europe so badly, that the USA became the prize. WWII cemented that status. The USA became the place from which the rot could spread to the rest of the world. That’s why the god of this age focused his attention here.

      Like

      • Elspeth says:

        I find the racial nonsense in France particularly absurd because anyone who knows anything about American history knows that from the 19th century to the mid-20th century, black Americans who could afford to expatriate (often artists, writers, and entertainers), flocked to France precisely because they could live freely there and be treated as human beings equal in worth and dignity to everyone else. France doesn’t even categorize its citizens by race the way we do here in the U.S.

        So the fact that they are dealing with identity politics is yes, partly a result of the U.S. exporting our dysfunction, but also due to their not realizing that allowing their borders to be overrun with Islamic and African immigrants is an invitation to this kind of mischief.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. cameron232 says:

    What type of rifles should you squirrel away? Why I”m glad you asked!

    I like my black plastic rifle but I’ve collected a 2nd type. My liberal interpretation of Jeff Cooper’s scout rifle concept. Compact, reasonably lightweight, magazine-fed bolt action (with a commonly available mag) in an inexpensive common caliber. Not likely to be banned, super easy to field strip and clean, reliable if you don’t, for less money you get a better trigger and barrel (probably). Doubles as a hunting rifle (with mag limiter if you follow the law). Not a scope snob – put a Bushnell on it – just fine. I have a 1x to 4x and I’ve even tried a fixed magnification shotgun scope. YOu can do 3x to 9x for long range if you think you’ll do that.

    What caliber? 7.62 x 39 is the cheapest centerfire now but I think they will ban Russian ammo from import and the prices are going to go through the roof (yeah they can go up). .308 (7.62 NATO) or 5.56 IMO.

    You can slick up the bolt and it will run real fast and smooth and they have “tactical” bolt handles to give you more to grab on. So I made up this category: “tactical bolt gun.”

    Like

    • lastmod says:

      It will do you little good when the roving gang that is armed shows up at your door….or the feds who are armed way, way, way better show up.

      In the prepper circles I at one time interfaced with….I noticed everyone is a “patriot / ‘Murica and the Constitution first”…..until the police, the feds or that gangs shows up on the doorstep.

      The best weapon in prepping for situations like this is knowing what to say and when to say it. Keeping a level head and mind (that will be critical, and the hardest thing to do). The few Jews that walked out of the Nazi death camps and other undesirables who came out of the work camps all had a common thing / theme to their survival:

      It wasn’t usually the strongest physically…..or the biggest, or the most intelligent…it was the ones who indeed had the most to live FOR.

      And that could be the weak, the ugly, the female, the child, the tough guy and even the good looking. The ones who had the most to live FOR in the end walked out albeit barely…..but walked out.

      What was to live for? Their faith. Their family. A perhaps better life? The mental pressure must have been extreme…..but it does call a resilience of the human spirit and it knew no gender, or “greek term” or age or physical beauty.

      Actually very Christian in a sense…too bad most don’t believe it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “It will do you little good when the roving gang that is armed shows up at your door….or the feds who are armed way, way, way better show up.

        In the prepper circles I at one time interfaced with….I noticed everyone is a “patriot / ‘Murica and the Constitution first”…..until the police, the feds or that gangs shows up on the doorstep.”

        How many actual situations do we know of where preppers have been tested by gangs?

        Seven armed males in a household is potentially useful against threats of roving gangs.

        Where did I say, fight the feds (or the local SWAT team)? A really bad idea. As if I am incapable of discerning different situations and how to react (or not react). Just as with your comments about all of us who wrecked your last chance with our false game advice, you lump other commenters here together with people you don’t like or who you disagree with. Because I have an interest in firearms and think owning some is useful (and fun to discuss with other men) I’m a blowhard ‘Merica! prepper.

        Great speech. Often those who walked out of death camps were a completely random assortment – they often had zero control over what was or wasn’t done to them. Derek interprests Christianity as pacifist I don’t.

        Like

  21. SFC Ton says:

    Nova

    #1 the us military has never failed to fire on its own citizens. Patton drove hard onto the man who saved his life in ww1 when he was ordered to clear out the bonus marchers. In the 1860’s union news papers advocated for the genocide of Soutger Whites, Sherman, Grant, Sheridan and their troops were happy to comply.

    Examples on how brutal the law and the military are toward their own people are pretty easy to find

    More directly…. The military is pretty dang blue

    You don’t get stars because you are good at your job, you get them becuase you are politically reliable ie a leftie. Same for the upper level NCO’s. I’ve been retired for a minute now. Can’t imagine how much worse that’s all gotten.

    The rank and file guys? Pretty far left. Unless you think the necons and Bush2 era republicans are conservative

    Conservative is not a term I like to use. It can be a handy phrase but really all most all the regular commentators here are rather progressive. I would say the military is conservative in the yay AMERICA! Do what we say or else stateist sort of way. They love themselves some big government, some serious law in order or else! While being ok with some 80-90% of the left’s social agenda. A lot of the oath keeper types are like that and I have been in some places where the oath keeper supported antifa/ blm in our stand offs over Confederate monuments..

    And of course as the military becomes more diverse it becomes more blue.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Liz says:

      Once anyone pins on a star they become a de facto political animal.
      Sometimes they accept the star before they know that, but every one of them is a political animal once they do.
      The ones who refuse are booted out as a one star.
      And that happens…contractors avoid hiring one stars. It is actually easier to get a follow on job as a contractor retiring O6 than O7, because they know the O7 did something very wrong in the eyes of leadership. It’s easier to make O8 from O7 than it is to make O4. All they have to do it play ball and it’s guaranteed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        Thought I should add, the above I have been told by many people I know and trust. Who were in positions to know. For my own experience I cannot argue.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I think you have to become a political animal just to get your first star. Some of them are honorable, but they’re still politicians.

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        Interesting, First time I heard this, but in looking back, I can see it.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        My favorite 1 star left the army when clinton won. He was my boss for my 1st two serious combat tours. He was ruthless but old school. Maybe the last old school general officer

        We were all floored when xxx got two stars. I think the government was desperate for talent because the war was going that badly but at the same time he was pretty liberal on most social issues/ conventional necon type and could justify every social change the army got into

        Everyone saw what happened to my old boss. It was national news. Never knew what he was saying about Waco back in ’93 but he was consulted, we know how that played out
        ………

        Semi unrelated, we need to redefine our idea of socially elite. The military gets paid no matter what, I think that is a version of being elite and they all have a vested interested in keeping It that way no matter what

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Ton

        Haven’t senior officers and NCOs always been considered social elites?

        Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “And of course as the military becomes more diverse it becomes more blue.”
      True, this is my experience in the military too.

      Like

  22. lastmod says:

    My Welsh grandfather in the British army survived the POW camps of the Japanese (captured in the fall of SIngapore in 1942). My father watched the NAZIs destroy Poland when they rolled into Poland in 1939, and the the Soviets destroy what little was left in 1945. I have had and an “easy” life compared to this….yet they both did well for themselves.

    We’re all doomed evidently….except for married folks and / or that top 20%

    Like

  23. Elspeth says:

    @ Lexet:

    I got this in my email this morning, and it underscores your point pretty well. Men like Baucham, Ascol, and Longshore (who authored this article) are going to have to decide how long they are going to keep this up. It’s an excellent analysis of the topic at hand, and somehow, SB Seminary leaders have taken the side of the supporters of Kamala Harris, because “not nice” or to be “not racist”?

    https://founders.org/2021/02/12/a-real-crossroads-the-jezebelian-intersection-of-a-texas-buck-and-the-washington-post/

    I see what you mean now. Not sure I fully agree (the husband will tell me what I think when I share the link with him, LOL). But you raise cogent objections to this kind of back and forth.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      We’re all going to have to make these choices soon. For example, should I retire from the Reserves with 28 years of service, or should I continue to be like Obadiah, who “feared the Lord greatly” while he served Ahab, and hid 100 prophets from Jezebel (1 Kings 18)?

      Either way, there will be consequences.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        One can do a lot of good for people in leadership positions, and the military places people leadership positions at a very young age.
        But there’s a limit.
        My spouse did a lot of good for a lot of people. I’m always glad to see good people staying in, when they can, for this reason.
        He too eventually got out (after about 28 years service, between the reserves and active duty).
        Not a day goes by that we aren’t overjoyed at being out. Not a day goes by I don’t feel badly for the people still in, but still grateful for our time spent there.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Liz

        One can do a lot of good for people in leadership positions

        Theoretically. I’ve been questioning how much good I’m doing at this point.

        But there’s a limit.

        Yep. Plus, we have to place our own families first. For a concrete example; I can’t call a “he” a “she”. That’s not a matter of personal conviction. It’s a foundational matter of faith. Who gets to define who, and what we are? God? Or us? In other words, are we our own gods?

        My dilemma is; do I retire honorably now? Or do I risk “misgendering” someone and being dishonorably discharged? Either way, there will be consequences.

        Not a day goes by that we aren’t overjoyed at being out. Not a day goes by I don’t feel badly for the people still in, but still grateful for our time spent there.

        May God bless you and yours.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      To be fair to Jezebel, she was actually married to King Ahab. KH rose to power by slobbering on the knobs of men to whom she wasn’t married. Referring to KH as Jezebel is an insult to Jezebel.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. SFC Ton says:

    @ Ton

    Haven’t senior officers and NCOs always been considered social elites?
    …….

    Officers? Not always. Patton’s father in law was pretty against an officer marrying his daughter. Generations before that? Kind of depends on the time periods and what not. Often the military was a place to park your younger sons while your older son played army part time for social standing and learned to run the family bidness full time.

    Nco’s? Hell no! Not historically. I came in during the post Vietnam era and the NCO corps was in a serious rebuilding phase. Socially full time military service in the peace time army was for looses with no better options.. Most def well regarded now but enlisted life was not highly regarded until relatively recently. The English had a tradition of viewing all enlisted troops as scum.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. lastmod says:

    For Cameron:

    “How many actual situations do we know of where preppers have been tested by gangs?”

    The current situation in The Union of South Africa and Venezuela on the world stage. The province of Juarea and Baja California in neearby Mexico. Home invasions in the USA since the 1990’s have been getting more violent, aggressive and dangerous…..and many have taken out an armed household very easily. The Viet / Lao gangs in San Jose have demonstrated this. Even that (cough) reality TV show about preppers…….easily overrun by a renegade group. Real life versus the firing range on actual combat / warfare is totally different reality.

    Randy Weaver / Ruby RIdge was easlily overrun by a few Agents in 1993. David Koresh (kook that he was) was blockaded and burned down and out by a fire that was (cough) “accidently” set by the Feds….oh, I mean him 😉

    I am a lifelong NRA member, and joined back in 1990….though that organization itself really does little or no good for gun owners or people who just believe the 2nd Ammendment should be protected, or their “Rights” (they have capitualted on California over the decades frequently, yet still tell me they are “fighting the liberals in Sacramento daily” and need more money from me now……..Wayne LaPierre is all talk and zero action). First rule about firearm ownership is to hope to never use it. In self-defense or otherwise. I own a firearm. No ne needs to know what kind, how “great” I am with it or not.

    I live in reality. I can defend my home (well, small apartment) but I am also fully aware that when the Feds knock on the door “demanding” said firearm……I know I will not be able to take them on, call a lawyer, or call the NRA. The NRA or a lawyer won’t help me unless I pay a lot fo money upfront. Nor will the police, nor will former military help me. The firearm will have to be surrendered. I also know that when / if in a more dire situation with ganags (I DO live in Fresno). There is no way I am going to take them all one…..sure may do some damange, perhaps even kill a few….but a desperate hungry, and conscious-free swarm of them? I’ll be over run.

    My firearm could be used for self defense…but I am banking on it more to keep me alive in the vast California wilderness if truth be told.

    Talking about guns with fellow men is fine I suppose. Though most here have more kills, and much more experience with a firearm than you or I will ever have. I grew up in a house full of them and it was never really discussed or spoken to the neighbors or people we didn’t know.

    I am an armchair prepper. I am a lone wolf but I know that in a dire situation that “I” will and MUST find people because I can be easily overrun. My first-aid and advanced field medicine skills are decent. Probably as good as a Medic in one of the branches with a rank of at least Sergeant. My skill set here could be useful to a group. My preps do focus a bit more on this.

    Yeah. What I said isn’t just a “good story” it was reality that countless lived through. By luck, By their faith. By their basic wits. By being able to probably work with people. By having the right mindset at critical moments in those terrible places like Treblanka….or the countless Jap POW camps in Burma, and Vietnam.

    A meek, tooly man I saw speak at my college in 1989 was a survivor of a Chinese “red guard” re-education camp from 1967-1969. It’s a damn shame only three students on my campus came to listen. A school teacher imprisoned for “wrongthink” and then “denounced” by his supposed “friends” to protect themselves (desperate men will buy and sell each other, rat each other out if it thinks it will get them a few seconds of reprive, nookie, female attention or a pat-on-the-back by the current gang running the show). He spoke of right speech. right thought. right principles. and a deep conviction that he would endure. He became a grey man inside, and by luck…….some skills, and good listening and a watchful eye….he lived. 25 lbs lighter than when he entered. But he survived.

    It took more than combat boots, or a gun, or game, or his supposed education. There was something more. His faith? His willingness to work with people he was imprisoned with in ways that were guarded but built trust…..this mindset will be priceless and its not easy.

    Canadian Prepper did a video about how most preppers will indeed be killed quickly in a real SHTF situation very quickly and many will be the first taking themse and their familes to the FEMA camps.

    Having a firearm is a good thing. A few well armed “men” will be overrun very quickly. They will

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      “Having a firearm is a good thing.”

      Yeah, that and “here’s a really cool gun concept to share with the guys” was the point of my comment I guess.

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        It was? Okay. Great. You own a firearm.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “It was? Okay. Great. You own a firearm.”

        Men frequently enjoy a sense of camaraderie discussing things that interest men on men’s sites. Sometimes you solicit feedback from other men: “dude, that’s a cool idea” or “that won’t work because……” in my above comment because there’s lots of military guys on here. Nobody bit – no big deal.

        You seem to come on here to snipe at others to get revenge on the manosphere people who wrecked your last chance 10 years ago by telling you looks don’t matter and learn game and beautiful women will flock to you. I didn’t tell you that (I never believed that and have only been reading sites like this for a few years). Did anyone else who is posting here tell you that? If so, name them. If not, it would be useful to think of us as unique individuals and not a manosphere caricature who wrecked your last chance.

        Sorry if I get your motivations wrong but you seem to have come fairly close to saying this.

        Elspeth criticizes manosphere excesses all the time but her criticisms don’t come off the same way yours do.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        Did anyone else who is posting here tell you that?

        None of us did.

        If so, name them.

        He can’t, because he knows he’s lying.

        If not, it would be useful to think of us as unique individuals and not a manosphere caricature who wrecked your last chance.

        That would require abandoning his “low opinion of” his “fellow man”, and his “seething hatred” of people he falsely accuses of advocating game.

        Like

    • Oscar says:

      His willingness to work with people he was imprisoned with in ways that were guarded but built trust…..this mindset will be priceless

      Kind of difficult to “work with people” and “build trust” when you have “a low opinion of” your “fellow man”.

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        Actually this speaker said when the Cultural Revolution started 1966, he lost faith in his fellow man for the act of brutal revenege people were dishing out on each other. How did it change? Well…..it never really did…..but he did learn to take situations as they come in the re-education camp.

        Yeah, I do have a general low opinion and very low expectations of my fellow man because for the fact I end up being their punching bag, someone they can bully, someone they can talk down to….and not even someone they can accept.

        It’s a genetics thing Osacr, if you had mine and all the trimmings…intellect, cognitive ability, emotional IQ that are lacking….you might come to the same conclusion. No…..you wouldn’t. You would be demanding “somebody” be blamed.

        I get angry and have a dire, almost seething hatred for the PUA / Game advocate but I would never be violent. Men like you get violent, and get away with it because of your better genetics and ther like…….men like me will pay for our transgressions.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        I get angry and have a dire, almost seething hatred for the PUA / Game advocate but I would never be violent.

        I’m not a “PUA/Game advocate”, and never have been, and you know that, yet you’ve accused me – and others who aren’t – of being so many times. Why? What good have your false accusations brought you?

        Yeah, I do have a general low opinion and very low expectations of my fellow man because for the fact I end up being their punching bag, someone they can bully, someone they can talk down to….and not even someone they can accept.

        You’re not the only person who’s ever been picked on. You were a scrawny, awkward kid with a mentally disabled older brother? So was I. My older brother lives with me, because he’s incapable of living on his own. I’ll probably take care of him for the rest of his life. You got beat up all the time? So did my brother and I. We couldn’t even speak English when that started happening, and we were dirt poor, living in crappy, high-crime, inner city neighborhoods. Oh, and that was after we fled our native country because Communists won a civil war, and threated to kill our dad.

        You’re not the only one who’s had it rough. What good has your “low opinion of” your “fellow man” done for you?

        Liked by 1 person

  26. Scott says:

    I saw an NCO in Afghanistan once with a T-shirt that read “Offices. Making easy sh!t hard for over 200 years.”

    And I realized there is an aura of this that stinks like cultural envy/snark.

    I thought to myself “if you’re so friggin smart, why don’t you become an officer, then?”

    Like

  27. SFC Ton says:

    I told them that insurgents don’t have to win battles. They just have to sow chaos in the enemy’s ranks. You already know how to do that.
    ……..

    Yup. Dont have to win. Just have to not loose long enoigh period of time for the poltical, economic, social etc fault lines to break.

    The governments best option is to depopulate the troubled areas. Which is a pretty staright forward job.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      The governments best option is to depopulate the troubled areas. Which is a pretty staright forward job.

      True, but I think that – between massive violence in the big cities, defections, desertions, and “blue” policies – the military will be largely ineffective. Besides, someone has to grow the food, drill for oil, drive the trucks, build stuff, etc., and it won’t be a bunch of blue haired, non-binary land whales.

      Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        It doesn’t take but a few hours to destroy a town of 30k before rolling on to the next target and it’s unlikely the entire nation will be acting up at the same time

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        You may be right, brother. Sadly, we shall see.

        Like

  28. SFC Ton says:

    The worldwide economic instability caused by an American civil war will probably exacerbate those troubles.
    ………

    Yup if the usa goes down most of the world’s economy goes down. One of the many sick jokes played on us is…. the world economy really depends on america getting f-cked from various trade deals while at the same time the us navy makes sure the world’s shipping lanes are free and clear. Canada wouldn’t have an economy at all without the usa. China? Will tank. China doesn’t have the navy to create a lot of trouble far from home. Germany? Would tank. Mexico? Will tank. Japan? Will tank. South Korea? Will tank. The UK? Can’t take a 100 billion dollar hit either and will tank.

    Then those nations’ economic problems will cause problems of their own

    The dollar not being the world reserve currency will cause who knows what kind of trouble.

    Where will Mexico, India etc. be when they can’t export their trouble makers to the USA?

    Most of the world relies on free trade to a much larger extent then the usa. How will global free trade work without the us navy protecting the sea lanes? No one else has a navy big enough to defend their own shipping and trade interests, let alone the resources to help keep other lanes open

    Globalism created a system where America is the single point of failure and at the same time, requires redistributing the wealth of America’s middle class.

    Can’t see how that will work long term

    Like

  29. Elspeth says:

    PSA:

    Bro. Voddie Baucham has been diagnosed with heart failure. He and his wife are -as I type this- making the long trek of 36 hours, three flights, back to the US so he can be treated.

    It is stressful on his body because he just left here a week ago. My husband and I attended two of the services where he taught.

    They have 7 minor children, and is asking the body of Christ to please pray.

    Like

  30. Scott says:

    NCOs aren’t supposed to be “elite.” They are like the military equivalent of a shop foreman in a blue collar environment. They are supposed to competent and professional, and very good at following orders to accomplish the overall mission.

    I saw this happen precisely twice the whole twenty years I was on active duty, and both times it was the same back female E-6. She was my very first supervisor and she was a bulldog when it came to protecting her soldiers, a hyper-competent ward master on the psych ward, and she never talked back to officers.

    Recall, the the opening line of the third paragraph of the NCO creed:

    Officers of my unit will have maximum time to accomplish their duties. They will not have to accomplish mine.

    That single line tells you everything you need to know about what an NCO is, knows and does.

    Soldier with jacked up uniform? Not the officers job. It’s the NCOs job.
    Supplies running low at the office? Not the officers job. It’s the NCO’s job.
    Commander gives an order to take a hill with 4 men and one rifle. You get the idea.

    Liked by 1 person

    • SFC Ton says:

      I was thinking less about the military and more about how society views things

      The military is part of our poltical/ ecconmic elites. Government employees always get their paycheck, even when getting that check drives tax payers deeper into debt, which is most def a version of elitism. Large chunks of our society view the military with insanely rose colored glasses which is also a version of elitism

      Like

      • Scott says:

        Yep.

        All they need to do is go to one “formal” military ball, and see all the skanks with their rolls of tatted up skin bulging out of their “modest” formalwear, twerking on the dancefloor and this will dissuade them of all of that.

        It is not what people think it is.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL also legit but again I’m thinking about how folks view things from outside the military

        For the record, my retirement and disability checks impart a very real level of elitism

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      I get that NCOs aren’t supposed to be elite, but I was thinking of senior NCOs. I’d consider a brigade-and-above Command Sergeant Major a cultural elite.

      Liked by 1 person

  31. lastmod says:

    My father served in the USAF during the peactime 1950’s. He had to join the military, start his citizenship paperwork or “go back to Poland” (just imagine the outrage today if we dared take someone who came here when they were 9 and when they turned 18 “Okay Miguel, you gotta enlist, become a Citizen or go back to Mexico”)

    He was promised a fast-track to US Citizenship IF he signed up for six years. He did. He did get US CItizenship (passed the test and the like during his last year of service). He entered with one stripe (Airman) and left with one stripe (Airman). Got an Honorable Discharge and went on with life. He hated every moment of it. He told me when I was coming of age “if you enlist in the military, don’t plan on coming back here”

    My dad was a fuel systems repair / maintenance for B-52’s. He was very good…….was even requested by certain crew / squads when they needed the guy who wanted to be left alone to do the job right. My father did not work well with others, but his work was competent…..having that kind of nature of being solitary doesn’t work well in the armed forces of any country….so he could be left alone…….in 1958, for his last two years……he was dropped at Nha Trang in South Vietnam.

    He didn’t hate the USA or the people per say in the military. He hated the system that built it, and seeing what the military did to his homeland of both the enemy (Germany) and an ally (The SOviet Union) he had contempt for the whole thing.

    Me? I don’t owe any vetrean respect for serving the USA. and “protecying my freedom” because if they joined post 1973……..it was voluntary. YOU put your ass on the line. YOU mad the choice to get shipped off to protect some national interest. I do understand the military CAn give some good skills and training to people. I do understand WHY we have one….but I don’t owe someone of my generation “free medical” or a bilge of other “benefits” because they put “their ass on the line.” I usually just glaze over whenever I hear a Vet post 1973 say this. I owe you nothing.

    Like

  32. lastmod says:

    “You’re not the only one who’s had it rough. What good has your “low opinion of” your “fellow man” done for you?”

    Actually it has prevented me from killing myself decades ago. That is what it has done. Plenty of people have it rough. I don’t deny that. I’ve lived in the third world for nine months. Saw first hand how well I have it comparatively speaking. At what cost though?

    You all advocate Game here by your actions, your words and your actual deeds. So self-assured you all are……on some hot roll to heaven while 99% of everyone isn’t worth the wart on a hogs ass around you.

    I’m idiot compared to you….so please stop wasting YOUR time replying to me. You’re actually proving my point with your pettiness and hairsplitting of my replies. Go invent something or adopt another kid…….

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      Actually it has prevented me from killing myself decades ago.

      Really? You complain that other men won’t “accept” you. Do you think your “low opinion of” your “fellow man” makes it more, or less likely for others to “accept” you?

      You all advocate Game here by your actions, your words and your actual deeds.

      Who’s “you all”? I’ve never advocated game. Why do you insist on lying about what others advocate? How are your lies helping you? Do you think lying about others makes more, or less likely for them to “accept” you?

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        Really? You complain that other men won’t “accept” you. Do you think your “low opinion of” your “fellow man” makes it more, or less likely for others to “accept” you?

        If I had a “high opinion” of my fellow man, I would be called a “fool’s fool” by you.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        Your actions, ‘tude, speech and general hatred of anyone who isn’t like you drips, oozes and basically is Game playbook: sh*t on anyone who doesn’t agree with you

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Your actions, ‘tude, speech and general hatred of anyone who isn’t like you…

        You’re projecting, Jason. You’re the one who has “a low opinion of” your “fellow man”. Remember? You’re the one who wrote…

        I get angry and have a dire, almost seething hatred for the PUA / Game advocate

        You’re the one who hates anyone who disagrees with you, then you project your “dire, almost seething hatred”, and “low opinion of” your “fellow man” onto others.

        How’s that working for you? Has it made you happy yet?

        Like

  33. cameron232 says:

    “You all advocate Game here by your actions, your words and your actual deeds.”

    Absolutely untrue. I (with my impressive n=1 notchcount) have advocated waiting until a girl shows clear interest in you and letting her act on it. I have been told here that that approach is too passive to work for most men (which is probably true).

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s