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.
I mean to imply that maybe you should google the French Revolution or Baronet Wolseley or open a history book and actually read about the rise and fall of many, many kingdoms. Something to that effect.
I heard Queen Elizabeth I was pretty cool.
http://i.dawn.com/large/2015/06/556bfad339dcd.jpg
Do you really think this is what monarchs do?
You know what monarchs do in order to “pass on their wealth to their children”?
They exact horrendous taxes on their subjects.
They execute people who don’t hold the same faith as they do.
They engage in pointless wars to extend the influence of their dynasties.
They engage in inbreeding so as to consolidate and accrue power.
They punish people for daring to wear clothing of the wrong colour, fabric or style.
They gleefully endorse slavery.
They crush dissent and freedom of thought.
I can go on. I can cite sources, many sources, for all of these.
Read a goddamn history book.
EDIT – and listen to Handsome Jack. Always Listen to Handsome Jack.
@wwth
Monarch: Alexander II (not sure if the liberation of the serfs was really a good thing, though).
Aristocrats: Washington and Adams.
Go ahead, you know you want to say something.
This is terrible advice. I don’t even listen to me.
Jadwiga of Poland was pretty cool. Fun fact, she was crowned King of Poland, because the law on the matter said that was the title, and they didn’t want to risk changing anything. The law said nothing about the gender of the king.
Also, she sent one of her knights to Lithuania before she married, with directions to find out which bathhouse her proposed husband used, and bring back pertinent info about what he looked like in the altogether. You can’t be too careful when it comes to marrying pagans. And Lithuanians.
http://static.tumblr.com/647ca0ced3a990bb406ce44b8369c68c/nefefsv/yIJo0bfoy/tumblr_static_ab06lnt15qg44s04kgkg4c8gw.jpg
Like, George Washington? Whatever happened to his family? Oh, that’s right, he had no kids. And there’s no descendants of [John] Adams around anymore either.
I think we found a flaw in your system.
Didn’t see the post by Scildreja when I made mine, but I find it humorous that one of her gripes about monarchs is that they “gleefully” support slavery, while one of my hangups is that Alexander II ended it for some people.
Some people, huh? Couldn’t have everyone free? What a shit monarch.
@Jack, but my advice is always terrible. It’s just par for the course!
And of course, one other thing is sticking in my craw about the whole “Count Bezukhov vs Dolokhov” thing.
@Sedentary Reactionary, citing fictional characters when arguing about the attributes of actual people is, uh. Not good. They’re fictional characters.
As for my favourite monarch? Frankly, I’ve always liked our current Queen Elizabeth II. She’s an embodiment of quiet determination and thoughtfulness. (Of course, I don’t follow the royals all that much, so perhaps she’s a terrible monster? It’s not a bubble I’d like to burst, but I could easily be wrong.)
I’ve not been following the main thread here, but neither Washington nor Adams were aristocrats by the standard of their society. Adams was a middle-class man who worked as a schoolteacher, lawyer and farmer–not a gentleman farmer, the kind who actually digs stuff up.
Now, the more open possibilities of American society, plus the outcome of the Revolution, certainly gave them a social status beyond country gentry, but, um.
@Bryce
D’you know, I’m not so sure about that. Most of the settlements we see in Fallout are gender-egalitarian, or at least close to it. Just about all the hunter-gatherer and subistence farming communities are. Most of the major West Coast population centres are – Shady Sands, the Shi, even the otherwise hugely inegalitarian Vault City. And the NCR have equality enshrined as a matter of law, and spread their principles everywhere they expand – with women well-represented on the front lines and in the special forces. The East Coast doesn’t have so many stable settlements, but they generally follow the principle of everyone pitching in where they can, according to their particular skills.
Really, the only exceptions are groups like the Brotherhood and the Legion – authoritarian organisations deliberately and explicitly created to adhere closely to their own artificial conception of traditional values, enforced with violence, and which are shown to be unsustainable and likely to collapse in the long- or even medium-term.
(As for survival skills… for someone raised on a farm, I have comically few, unless “overanalysing video games” counts. But, well, I’m moderately strong, reasonably bright, and eager to please – I can help out and follow directions, which does honestly seem to be the way to get everyone through in any sort of collective in any but the direst circumstances.)
Also, re: aristocrats – at what point does a slovenly ideas-above-their-station middle-class usurper family become wise, admirable aristocracy? After all, such families have to come from somewhere.
SR, you seem to have some very romantic notions about aristocrats. Please tell us how you formed those notions. What is a true one? Do you know any?
Please nominate genuine American aristocrats who should be handed the reigns of your government. Please point out international examples of current monarchs who actually govern, and do so wisely for the benefit of all.
If that is too hard, please point out historical examples.
If that is too hard, at least give us a link to your monarchist fantasy fan-fic.
ETA (because I loved Podkayne’s post apocalypse piece so much, and would read more all day long if I could)
ETA again – OK, see you did sort of.
What a cheeky little scamp you are.
Okay, @Sedentary Reactionary, that was a smidge unclear (around the word ‘hangups’). To clarify – you think it was bad that Alexander II ended slavery for some people?
@Podkayne Lives
By “aristocrats”, what’stheirname means probably “people who have taken positions of power and money by force and killed a bunch of people in the process”, which is how kingdoms are made and could apply to people involved in the American Revolution as well, especially since people wanted George Washington to be a king rather than an elected official.
You hear that, kids? Don’t listen to us. Use your own critical thinking. I mean, running with scissors, dangerous and more efficient? Your call.
@Handsome Jack
It’s just one of those things you need to experiment with before you take it a step further.
What, the scissors? Was that a pun?
Uh…this isn’t in reference to the slavery, is it?
http://66.media.tumblr.com/5781990fa16c279f814a6b126b08a09c/tumblr_inline_nsjjjeNmzi1ri743n_250.png
It was, wasn’t it.
If whatever I said was clever, it was totally on purpose and I knew exactly what I was doing. If it wasn’t, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
@Croquembouche of patriarchy
I’m nnoyed that he keeps ignoring every single historic and modern instance of aristocrats being awful, tyrannical, petty, discriminatory, abusive and short sighted. After all they did have their wealth by literally killing off everyone else, you know as people before the concepts of trade outweighed the spoils of war.
@Sedentary
As someone who has studied warring states and dynasties from europe, china and japan I think I have enough examples to show that the monarchist government tends to change hands in brutal and painful ways, and more importantly, fell apart in the face of other governments.
@Handsome Jack
Wait I thought he was talking about Monarchy in the US, not fucking slavery. Yeah they totally enforced the slave trade as an experiment and if successful they would have managed to create the slave lizard people race.
If people want to see what hereditary absolute rulership is like, there are still some around. Look at Bahrain, Brunei, (functionally) the DPRK, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, the Vatican, or the United Arab Emirates.
(Unrelated: I have worked with people from Saudi Arabia. They’re lovely people, and my heart goes out to them.)
Sing me the praises of these rulers, @Sedentary Reactionary. Show me the superiority of their ways, teach me how mild and long-sighted they are.
Okay, this threads moved on quite a bit. Schildfreja’s been making good points (I think you could teach most resident physicians about cognitive error, if you’d like), Podkaynes been hilarious, and everyone else has helped rip the trolls arguments to shreds.
I just wanted to say to Ax: I was being over general about Africa. I was specifically thinking of Darfour, although Algeria and Egypt probably look like the ‘slow apocalypse’ scenario. Obviously, Kenya and South Africa are doing well for themselves, and as far as I know, the rest of Africa is trundling along.
Otherwise, carry on, I’m going to bed. Got an early flight back to Chicago tomorrow.
@Scildfreja
He ended serfdom and attempted to draft a constitution (he was assassinated by bombs the first day he began to take steps towards drafting one). I feel a tad uneasy about both, personally.
Considering they’re espousing the non-existent wonders of monarchy, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t think of it needing experiments but that’s just me. I misread shit all the time.
What…does that even mean. Uneasy about both? Uneasy about ending serfdom and drafting a constitution?
But, he’s an aristocrat, he knows better than you.
Okay, this threads moved on quite a bit. Schildfreja’s been making good points (I think you could teach most resident physicians about cognitive error, if you’d like), Podkaynes been hilarious, and everyone else has helped rip the trolls arguments to shreds.
I just wanted to say to Ax: I was being over general about Africa. I was specifically thinking of Darfour, although parts of Algeria and Egypt probably look like the ‘slow apocalypse’ scenario. Obviously, Kenya and South Africa are doing well for themselves, and as far as I know, the rest of Africa is trundling along.
Otherwise, carry on, I’m going to bed. Got an early flight back to Chicago tomorrow.
I’m also interested to know how the king – it’d be a king obviously, remember we’ve been enlightened to the fact that women are no good at long term planning – would get chosen after this supposedly inevitable destruction of modern society.
Because honestly, if history is any proof, in times of anarchy, you get tyrants, not responsible rulers.
Also, since no one else has decided to pick up on this point…
Hey Mr. SR, if women are supposedly all drawn to super masculine manly men of the male persuasion, what about all the ones who… aren’t? Or just LGBT folk in general? Or even just women who prefer non-hyper masculine men?