It’s no big secret that many doomsday preppers yearn for the apocalypse — if for no other reason than the opportunities it will provide them to say “I told you so” to all those who doubted their paranoid fantasies. And to possibly shoot some of these unprepared scoffers when they come begging for food.
Nowhere is this more obvious than amongst those apocalypse-fantasizers who’ve convinced themselves that it will be feminism, rather than volcanic eruptions or nuclear war or Donald Trump, that will bring about the end of the world.
On the Men Going Their Own way subreddit, the regulars are talking apocalypse, as modern misogynists are wont to do. And it is as revealing as these exercises always are.
A fellow called BagOfBrokenBits dreams of a not-very-distant future in which uppity ladies “will do whatever they are told.”
The future as I see it, is that as society collapses around us (5-15 years?) most women outside of a tightly controlled patriarchal group simply will not survive, because nobody will put up with their sh*t long enough to feed them. When resources are scarce they will not be able to defend what they have and most lack the health, strength and abilities to obtain or build what they need. There will be no feminism, there will be patriarchy. Men will work together as they always have, in challenging and horrific conditions. Women will do whatever they are told because conditions will be too harsh to tolerate dissent.
And Mr. Bag will be one of those doing the telling, because of all the toiletries he is hoarding:
I am a Prepper. I currently have stores of food, toiletries etc for five years with tools, seeds etc to extend that.
He’s apparently filling his doomsday bunker with as many canned goods as he can get his hands on:
It has been noted that in past shortages due to wars an afternoon with a woman can be had for a tin of … anything really.
You know what I mean, you know what I mean? Nudge nudge say no more!
The pros and cons of the apocalypse:
Cons:
- Death of most of the human race
- Contamination of water sources with dead bodies
- No medical care beyond basic first aid
- Return to stone age civilization
Pros:
- Women will have sex with you for a can of beans
AOF_Semiramis suggests moving to New Zealand. And he has some interesting thoughts about Pokemon GO.
Go complete ghost in New Zealand or the likes.Heck even in the US with private as fuck properties.Grow your own food,have stable ways to get water and raise animals a la farm.Fish too if your near a lake.Assuming your far away enough,lake is isolated enough,your too far from idiot humans and any large concentration of them,then nukes won’t land on your spot too since it would be a waste of resources.(Its why the CIA funded Pokemon GO. So the brainless droves would fill the map for them.Obviusly there are still holes.)
Surviving the apocalypse is so easy that even a kid could do it!
Also..a 15 year old discovered an ancient city due to studying the stars in Central America.So you can bet that there are other places in the world where you can live safely.
Make sure to pack popcorn, for all the gloating you’ll be doing.
I know its f*cked up,but nothing you can do to stop it. You can only save yourself at most.So just chill,get some popcorn,and just accept the f*cking up.
timoppenheimer, meanwhile, doesn’t seem to be doing any prepping beyond living as selfishly as he can:
WWIII is coming, and I am horrified too, OP.
My plan is to enjoy my life. They already took my foreskin; fuck society, I’m living my life for me.
Talkytalktalk is evidently a fan of Alex Jones:
This is the great culling of the human population. The eugenics population reduction freaks are going to kill billions and out the rest under the yoke of totalitarianism. It takes a woman to pick the runts and dispose of them.
But which woman? WHICH WOMAN!?
I need to know now so I can mangina my way into her good graces before the culling.
You’re right, instead of giving people the chance to vote stupid in and have them be in office for a few years, let stupid people run the government because they were born into ruling. That totally worked in history and never cause any revolutions or people killed so other people could ascend the throne for their own personal gain or anything.
@ sedentary reactionary
I am not unsympathetic to the maxim “Democracy is the worst system of government there is; apart from all the other ones”
“When I am the last man on Earth, then I will surely get some pussy.”
@Sedentary
Godwin, bruh, you do know your ideology of hate, fear and paranoia and oversimplification of the “other” are the direct causes to produce these tyrants right? That your monarchistic views can be dismissed with single google search of War of the Roses? The idea of bright lights being somehow superior and above acts of pettiness is laughable.
Yes lets keep those in power always in power and the people have no say whatsoever.
Funny how you ignore the other fact that these people rose during times of political strife where nativist sentiments get on the rise, leading to those willing to hurt alot of people to get those in power, including the upper class. That’s not even mentioning violently putting down dissenters with propoganda. The same nativist views you hold.
Comparing Hillary to Trump, what a silly way to try to equivocate the two. Especially when one has shown capable of not destroying the country and the other can’t even make the Mexican president pay for his wall.
Your experiences seem to discount the fact that their views are ingrained into a system of right wing propoganda turned hp to 11, by those upper classmen who exploit irrational fears to ensure that they keep themselves in power.
And oh look Democracy was able to get multiple forms of race, gender and sexual equality by giving power to the people, instead of giving smaller groups of racists disproportionate amount of control over minorities.
When the system isn’t exploited by the 1% making it so they have everything they want while everyone else’s wages, infrastructure, education, medical and more on put on the wayside because short term greed fueled by the knowledge they will always have the government to keep them rich of course.
Your preference towards elites is unwarranted.
*hops onto WHTM hoping fervently that John has proudly adopted ‘regicidal beast of burden’ but not wanting to bid goodbye to ‘pansy-ass pinko’*
YES MY CUP RUNNETH OVER
@Axe, dear Lord and Master, are you going to add ‘racketous hell-hound’ to your handle? It rather suits you 🙂
@Scildfreja – I want to be just like you when I grow up. You are simply wonderful.
@ oogly boggles
It’s probably more correct to speak of the WarS of the Roses.
What’s amazing about that period is that in the 30 plus years they ran, there was less than 7 weeks of actual open conflict and 5 days of fighting in total.
For the vast majority of the population (St Albans excepted) they might as well of not been happening.
Well. I was away for a few hours and see our new troll friend is still with us. I suppose my afternoon would not be troll approved. Too multicultural! I went to the Swedish Institute and then to a Greek restaurant for an early dinner, followed by a drink at a Mexican restaurant. Are any of those cultures acceptable?
Anyway. Enough about me and my petty feeeemale life.
I’ve noticed, catching up here that there’s a pattern that Reactionary is displaying. He’s very eager to talk about how other people are stupid and shallow and doing it wrong. He’s happy to talk about how society is very bad. What he will not do is talk about how he’s doing it right. He won’t expand on how things should look. He won’t tell us how we can do it right and he still seems to have no vision of how an ideal culture would look. He just knows that everyone else is the worst.
In other words, he’s a total Debbie Downer.
http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3zjc4JmYs1qh0b3jo1_250.gif
Lots of people have responded to SR with brilliant comments, especially Scildfreja, who was also remarkably kind and welcoming.
But I’ll give it a shot anyway.
@Sedentary Reactionary
Your love of nature and your opinion that nature is ultimately more powerful than humans resonates quite well with the philosophy of the Greens, not to mention many other left-wing environmental groups and wiccans.
Your desire to be above it all, your wish for a monarch(!), and most of all your hatred for and scorn of pretty much everyone who is not you, however, does not fit in with their philosophy.
You present yourself as a long-term thinker. Then you’ll need months to defend your views. You are not a long-term thinker. Mostly what you are is a hater.
Time to rethink everything you’ve ever thought.
Would you rather think bitter thoughts alone? Or hang out with some really nice people who share your reverence for nature? That’s the choice you face.
Hee! Of course you’d interpret my statement as me trying to issue a moral imperative. How silly of me. I forgot that you think i’m one of those evil leftists trying to tell people what to do. Let me try again.
@Sedentary Reactionary, it would benefit you to consider the views of others as having actual substance. As in, you would find your own views deepening, you would find less cause to argue, and you would find that they have honest, good, strong points that could even overturn some of your own.
It is called the principle of charity, friend, and it is the single strongest weapon in the rationalist’s arsenal, for it is a weapon you turn on yourself. Seeking truth is about self-destruction, the eradication of wrong ideas in your own mind. Without this tool, all of the other methods of rationality fail, and you will be lost in self-deception.
I can, again, provide ample citations if desired.
It always comes to this. “People are stupid,” the authoritarian cries, “they deserve to be led like the sheep that they are.”
People aren’t stupid, they are embedded. Embedded in problems you don’t understand, in situations you don’t know about, with complications you are ignorant of. People are smart when provided with the right contextual cues. People are strong, people are brave. You only see them from the outside, so you attribute their behaviours to their character instead of the specifics of their life. This is called Fundamental Attribution bias, and is a central bias in human cognition.
I can provide ample citation on this as well, if you would like.
There is also always a corollary to “People are stupid,” too. “People are stupid – and I am smart.”
This is almost always wrong. You have, for instance, trotted out the whole “people supported Hitler!” tripe as if it were meaningful. Go read some interviews of the Germans who lived through that time, the ‘sheep.’ Each and everyone had reasons – good reasons – for going along with it. But you trotted the line out anyways, assuming that we wouldn’t have thought of such a thing. This is a high-school level of argument. If you can’t do better than that, have some humility when presenting your opinions. You may hold your opinions, but you should not hold them sacrosanct when the they would be circled with a big “DO BETTER” in an introductory political science class assignment.
There is a lot to be angry about with the level of political discourse in the USA right now. Blatant authoritarian fascism rears its head as a successor to the soft corporate oligarchy of the past decade. Misinformation and lies are everywhere. This is not evidence that people are stupid. This is evidence of the creeping danger of oligarchy.
And besides, I thought you liked absolute rulers? What was all that about
?
Your beliefs are incoherent, sir. This is what happens when you don’t critically self-examine. You get unhealthy ideological growths.
It’s funny that Reactionary is using Donald Trump as an example of Democracy being a failure.
Trump is the very epitome of privileged elitism. Okay, he doesn’t have a hoity toity upper crusty way of speaking. So what? He’s a straight white Christian man. He’s from a wealthy family. He got into Wharton using family connections. His dad gave him a ton of money to start a business. Trump is not an example of what you get when common folk rule. He’s an example of of what happens when the privileged and wealthy rule. Trump would likely be nothing if we had a system that was truly merit based and truly by the people of the people.
Please note I mean truly merit based, not what masquerades as merit based under capitalism. I tend to get suspicious when people extol the virtues of merit. I’m in agreement with what Chris Hayes has to say on the subject. In our current culture it is just not possible to separate merit from privilege.
@Alan
Yeah I picked that particular set of events because of how little actually happened, just alot of petty squabbles that didn’t do anything worthwhile.
(Aww, my comment was awaiting moderation cause i changed my name. I post this instead. Sorry for doublepost when it happens)
(Also, @Mish, you can do way better than being me! <3 tho)
Hee! Of course you’d interpret my statement as me trying to issue a moral imperative. How silly of me. I forgot that you think i’m one of those evil leftists trying to tell people what to do. Let me try again.
@Sedentary Reactionary, it would benefit you to consider the views of others as having actual substance. As in, you would find your own views deepening, you would find less cause to argue, and you would find that they have honest, good, strong points that could even overturn some of your own.
It is called the principle of charity, friend, and it is the single strongest weapon in the rationalist’s arsenal, for it is a weapon you turn on yourself. Seeking truth is about self-destruction, the eradication of wrong ideas in your own mind. Without this tool, all of the other methods of rationality fail, and you will be lost in self-deception.
I can, again, provide ample citations if desired.
It always comes to this. “People are stupid,” the authoritarian cries, “they deserve to be led like the sheep that they are.”
People aren’t stupid, they are embedded. Embedded in problems you don’t understand, in situations you don’t know about, with complications you are ignorant of. People are smart when provided with the right contextual cues. People are strong, people are brave. You only see them from the outside, so you attribute their behaviours to their character instead of the specifics of their life. This is called Fundamental Attribution bias, and is a central bias in human cognition.
I can provide ample citation on this as well, if you would like.
There is also always a corollary to “People are stupid,” too. “People are stupid – and I am smart.”
This is almost always wrong. You have, for instance, trotted out the whole “people supported Hitler!” tripe as if it were meaningful. Go read some interviews of the germans who lived through that time, the ‘sheep.’ Each and everyone had reasons – good reasons – for going along with it. But you trotted the line out anyways, assuming that we wouldn’t have thought of such a thing. This is a high-school level of argument. If you can’t do better than that, have some humility when presenting your opinions. You may hold your opinions, but you should not hold them sacrosanct when the they would be circled with a big “DO BETTER” in an introductory political science class assignment.
There is a lot to be angry about with the level of political discourse in the USA right now. Blatant authoritarian fascism rears its head as a successor to the soft corporate oligarchy of the past decade. Misinformation and lies are everywhere. This is not evidence that people are stupid. This is evidence of the creeping danger of oligarchy.
And besides, I thought you liked absolute rulers? What was all that about
?
Your beliefs are incoherent, sir. This is what happens when you don’t critically self-examine. You get unhealthy ideological growths.
I wish I could contribute to this thread, but I keep getting derailed by fantasies of the post apocalypse Mammotheer commune.
Founded when Scildfreya, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Axecalibur from the bosom of the waters, signifying by divine Providence that SR should henceforth be known as the AntiDennis.
As the recent Last Man On Earth TV show has shown us, this is not necessarily so.
@Handsome Jack
The problem with democracy is that it’s far too competitive and people who are little more than snakes in nicely-tailored suits will say and do whatever, no matter how stupid or unprincipled, in order to gain power. Is it really so bad, to live in a world where the rulers of a society spend their days fopping about, smoking opium, and shooting each other a la Count Bezukhov vs Dolokhov?
Aristocrats must think in the long term, because they must pass their money and prestige down to their children; rulers in democracy only do what’s needed to secure votes, no matter how foolish. I do declare that money, like wine, is better with age.
I’m more of a jack of all trades, master at none type. I’m not really sure how I would contribute to the post apocalyptic Mammoth commune. I generally get along with and work well with people and learn quickly, so I’d probably be trained up to fill whatever role is needed. I’m not very squeamish (except when it comes to centipedes) so I’d probably be a good medical assistant to Joekster, Alpine; RN and whoever else here is in that field. I can handle blood. I might be able to teach social studies to adolescent aged kids too.
@Alan
Super hesitant I’m sure
@Mish
Lady and Mistress, thanks much. The girl titles are cooler. There can be dude Mistresses, right? Right?
Oh, nay nay, mein Liebchen. I keep things simple. 1 nicknym at a time for me. Besides, Alan gave me my current epithet. I like Alan. I don’t much like September Rainstorm or whatever the fuck his name is. Speaking of whom…
@Saoirse Ronan
People can’t be left to govern themselves! Hitler happened, cos of votes! We should be in a monarchy!
What was that? Bloody Mary wasn’t exactly a supporter of rights and freedoms? Well, not her
Huh? Ivan the Terrible was the definition of tyranny? Doesn’t count
Come again? Leopold the Builder has more black blood on his hands than any Dixie slave driver? Ignore that
Scuse me? That’s just the tip of the iceberg as far as horrific monarchs? Uhm…
Jackass
@wwth
The Trump family differs significantly from what I would consider to be an authentically aristocratic family; his father did not inherit money and wisdom from some family which had demonstrated fiscal intelligence by wielding their fortune for generations. His father simply got lucky, and while he was able to pass his money down to his son, he was surely unable to pass down anything regarding intelligence in fiscal matters (I take Donald Trump’s issues with debt and bankruptcy to be a fine indication of such). Donald Trump was not raised in what I would declare to be a princely fashion; he was not appropriately groomed for the task of leadership.
@SR
This is indeed so. In fact, that people allow themselves to be made subservient to someone else’s will is how projection of power (and thus: power) works in general: A king’s capability to reign is grounded in his subjects’ silent assent to be governed, etc. pp.
And I’d argue that one of the major benefits of democracy is its capability to make this assent to be governed visible and explicit, ideally even recursive, whereas it gets actively hidden (“With odd old ends stol’n forth of holy writ […]”) in all forms of autocracy. Which clearly serves to undermine the capability of the governed to reject unjust or plain evil demands made of them by the powers that be.
I just keep imagining one of the MGTOWs in a post-apocalyptic community run by one of the hippie-libertarian patriarchs of my local SCA.
“Son,” says the patriarch, sipping his scavenged wine, and gnawing on a wild turkey leg, “son, you’re gonna have to apologize real nicely to Concubine #14, or I’m gonna have to cut your head off with a broadsword. I don’t know why you think you can talk like that to #14, but you can’t. For one thing, she can deliver a baby goat, or whatever they’re called, and you can’t, and also, she’s a woman, and we have sex. Even if I were into men, son, you are not the most preposessing specimen out there. So you’re gonna apologize–nicely–and we’ll hear no more about it.
“While we’re on the subject, I’ve been meaning to say, you just need to have a better attitude toward women in general. You’re not a bad-looking guy, I guess. You could find someone here, but you need to show some respect, and also you need to wipe your ass correctly, son. That is very important. Women like a man who wipes his ass. It shows respect. Take a bath. We have a creek for a reason. I bathe three times a week, when it’s warm enough.
“And stop tryin’ to tell me what a real post-apocalyptic patriarchy is supposed to be like. I have been running this one for eight years, and everyone eats, not so many of us get killed, and I get laid a lot. As far as I’m concerned, this is what winning looks like.
“Stop cryin’ son. Everyone’s been through a lot. It’s too bad the end of the world didn’t work out more like you wanted. Have some turkey before you go and find Karen…excuse me, Concubine #14…and say sorry.”
http://67.media.tumblr.com/c5bb91e92b939864a0329b05aec68bef/tumblr_inline_o83qfayxer1tfzekw_1280.png
@ Sedentary Reactionary: “Aristocrats must think in the long term, because they must pass their money and prestige down to their children”.
Great Deities, have you read any history?
Aristocrats are no more rational than anyone else. As I’m a little drunk, I’m not going to even attempt to remember or research the topic in depth, but just from Googling “unsuccessful monarchs” I got plenty of hits
http://www.historyextra.com/article/international-history/9-worst-monarchs-history
There has been so much suffering and death throughout history. Some of it has been due to not being technologically and scientifically advanced enough to have say, antibiotics and sewage treatment. Plenty of it is due to the hubris and stupidity of incompetent or cruel monarchs though.
At least in a Democracy, we can throw rulers who make terrible decisions out of office without being imprisoned or killed for attempting it!
@Handsome Jack
And what, fine sir, do you mean to imply?
Getting lucky? What would you call being born into an aristocratic family if not getting lucky?
If you don’t think being born wealthy in this plutocratic and capitalistic society we have now has no parallels whatsoever with aristocracy, you’re very, very naive.
Say, which monarch do you admire? What king or emperor to you think is the kind of kind of benevolent rule we should aim for? Or is this one of those things you need months to ponder?
Personally, my favorite aristocrat is Eleanor of Aquitaine, but I know you don’t like women very much so you probably don’t agree.