192 thoughts on “The Difference Between Being A Man In 1914 Compared To 2014”

1. Killer fuckin article, bro.

   1. You dont happen to drive a white 1970 Dodge Challenger do you?

2. The ignorance and patronization of men of the past in several sections of this article is astounding.
   The patronizing description of men of the past as getting information from “a couple newspapers, their priest,” etc., and being ridiculed for having ideas that were “out there,” is absurd to any student of history. Literate men have traditionally tolerated much greater differences of opinion, have been better educated and informed, and have had greater substantive depth to their arguments in the past than is now common, when most men don’t bother getting information at all, or, to the extent they do, they get it from intellectual power-houses like this “dating and relationship expert.”
   The idea that we have moved past “religious dogma” and that we no longer think our religion is “right” and everyone else is “an idiot” is also laughable. We have a new religion now, the chief tenet of which is indifferent tolerance. What makes our new religion ten times stupider than the old insistence on “religious dogma,” is that modern man is stupid enough to think that tolerance is “right” and everyone else is an idiot for disagreeing. In other words, people are just as dogmatic and convinced of their opinions now, but they have embraced the logically contradictory position that they are absolutely right in insisting that nobody is absolutely right. Anybody who bothers to study the dogmatic theology of the great religions, and especially Catholicism, sees that there is a great depth of intellectual rigour and philosophical integrity… far greater and far clearer independent thought than is to be found in the mass of ignorant and inconsistent opinion amongst today’s “free-thinkers.” Besides, anyone who can’t see that the loss of religious conviction – a concern with ultimate truths – is part and parcel of the descent into feminism, relativism, multi-culti insanity and the whole rest of the “blue-pill” worldview, needs to pay closer attention.
   You also mis-characterize the tendency of men to honour their own way of life. Especially to the person who has studied history, it immediately becomes clear that men have always known that other cultures had different customs, without immediately concluding that they were “worse.” The famous saying, “In Rome, do as the Romans do,” was the advice of St. Ambrose to St. Monica, mother of St. Augustine, in the 5th century. It was borne of the recognition that life and customs in Rome are different, not better or worse. Men have always known this and, in fact, before multi-culturalism eroded our sense of pride in culture, men knew it better than we know it today. Rather, men had a code of honour, and also understood the importance of the preservation of culture. A samurai would have taken offense to the idea that he should cease living as a samurai, because his entire code of honour, his culture, his vows and his personal integrity were tied to that way of life. But he would have respected a well-trained knight and his code of chivalry. In fact, he would have lost all respect for a knight who violated his vows and chivalric code in order to join up with the samurais, even though this would have involved the knight embracing his own way of life.
   I don’t want to just be an ass and trash your contribution to the site. Congratulations on having the ambition to get an article published here. But you have really run your mouth off quite ignorantly about some of the most important truths about masculine culture of the past. Hopefully some constructive criticism will spur you on to learn more about these things, before discussing them with such an air of certitude.

   1. “We have a new religion now, the chief tenet of which is indifferent tolerance.” – Very well said. You have now added to my vocabulary. I am going to steal this phrase and not give you any credit and people will think I am the smart one. Only you and I will know that you are the smart one.

      1. That was the best & most accurate portion of the article.

      2. Thanks, man; that was good for a laugh!

   2. Fantastic and insightful comment.

   3. This post and the article itself I find both to be good and leaves me much to ponder.
      I think the best thing to do would be to avoid the “historical accounts” – for this is history written by fallible humans (at the least – and agenda at the worst).
      I would read the letters. There are many collections out there of letters between people, or collections of letters by famous people. Find those letters and personal correspondence and journals and you get to see the real history on the level where the sword meets the flesh.
      Many years from now archaeologists will dig up hard drives and phones and look through the messages found there and (through much of the crap they will find) will learn why America became rubble. “Oh look, this one was posting selfies right up to the day she was rounded up but there was nothing about the police state forming around her” – that’s what will be said.

   4. Your criticisms are very well articulated and I agree wholeheartedly. This article seems to almost paint people of yesteryear in a bad light – as if they had a sort of barbaric ignorance about them. I would venture to say our forefathers had better virtues, a stronger sense of community, and a greater appreciation for life and the world around them overall than we do today. Our perspective of the world is skewed through a heavy filter of government propaganda, mass media, social and technological distractions, and corrupt educational institutions. This is not to say that there was no corruption, extreme patriotism, or indoctrinated social norms in the early 1900’s, but media, special interest, corporatism, and big government were not what they are today. The 1910’s was still an era where decisions were made by people – the economy was moving vertically and was built upon the backs of hard working men. Look at what made people who they were back then:
      There we no cell phones, internet, or social media. In order to have a social life you actually had to spend time with people in real life. Go outside and go to social events without taking pictures and texting and tweeting about it staring down at your phone the whole time. To meet women you had to grow balls, approach them, and it took a lot of work to get in their pants because they were reserved, chaste, and selective. People developed verbal and physical social skills naturally by going out, interacting with one another, and learning who they were and what other people were like.
      You knew who your neighbors were. The family next door were you best friends. You cared about them and they cared about you. Your community mattered.
      If you wanted to know the news you had to read about it from a newspaper written by well-educated journalists, not a tweet or a status update by some teenage instagram celebrity or pop-media content aggregate like Buzzfeed or Huffpo.
      Men didn’t sit in cubicles hammering away at keyboards – they were turning wrenches, murdering foreigners in war, building sky scrapers, and tilling soil. These things built character and made men hearty. Women didn’t care about doing what men did – they weren’t wearing suit jackets and competing in courtrooms, they weren’t running for office, and they weren’t abstaining from marriage or having children. They supported men and men supported them, each in their own unique ways.
      I could go on and on, but at some point it may be better just to write another article…

      1. Thanks for the substantive reply. Yes, I think modern man is far inferior in virtue and knowledge to his forebears of just two generations ago.
         I’m getting a Master’s in Greek and Latin. My professors today are not capable of doing the things that used to be part of the *entrance* exam for incoming *freshmen* at university. This seems to be par for the course in many fields of knowledge and craft nowadays. Everything is being reduced to the feminine standard of mediocrity. I felt like some of the historical analysis in this article was also content with that kind of unquestioning mediocrity, that just assumes the truth of whatever popular myths are now circulating.

         1. Lets agree that there are very clever ladies too and that most men are mediocre as well. “Everything is being reduced to (a) standard of mediocrity.” should be enough. The German Abitur of 1900.

         2. I used the phrase advisedly. Because women generally tend to spread their interests and efforts more diffusely and shallowly, they tend not to become expert practitioners of any craft or field of knowledge – but their most important role in society (the domestic work of wife and mother) is very suited to this. So, though their work tends to be of a more middling and “uninspired” variety, it is still of immense importance to society and I do not mean to denigrate it. There are some clever women, yes (though, I truly can’t think of a *great* female author, painter, musician, inventor, etc.); there is really no doubt, however, that excellence, genius and great feats of accomplishment have almost exclusively arisen from the drive and focus of the masculine spirit.

   5. You left out the intellectually rigor and philosophical integrity of the reformed tradition. Otherwise you are right.

   6. I agree with most of your comment, but disagree that the phrase “when in Rome, do as the Romans” means people saw cultures not as better or worse but equal. I read that advice as the recognition that Rome was better than most cultures and one source of their power was that others wanted to emulate their better way of doing things. (America still has that a little bit, but we seem to be pissing it away).
      I don’t know if this line comes from him, but I heard it from Mark Steyn: he said that during times like the height of the British Empire, people knew a whole lot about other cultures on a deep level with long historical perspective, but believed their’s was better. Now, we think we understand other cultures because we eat tacos and fried noodles while believing cultures are equal. The idea that cultures are not better or worse but just different seems quite new me.

      1. I’m not saying that men of the past considered all cultures equal. Certainly white European men considered their culture objectively superior to almost everyone they met, and since they easily conquered and ruled them it would be hard to argue. But they were capable of seeing that there were morally and philosophically excellent elements of other cultures, and they were capable of admiring other nations of equal cultural development (i.e., an Italian could respect the Germans as having a different but equally good culture).
         The phrase “do as the Romans do” was not an admission that Rome was better. Rather, St. Monica, upon moving to Rome, found that in Rome the custom was to fast on Saturdays, whereas in other Christian regions fasting on Saturday was forbidden. St. Ambrose said there was no need to be dogmatic; on questions like that, one should follow the local customs and not make a fuss. He didn’t take sides and try to defend one culture as better than the other. A Pope of Rome, in fact – Pope St. Gregory the Great – told St. Austin of Canterbury that “places are to be loved for the good customs in them, and not customs on account of their places.” He said this to St. Austin, because he was preaching the Gospel in England and had found a few Christian communities with customs inherited from Gallican churches. He wondered if he should make them conform to the Roman practice. Pope St. Gregory said that, no, he should judge wisely between the customs and let them keep the best ones, from wherever they came. I think people of the past really were more aware of the fact that cultures differed, and there wasn’t always a clear-cut “better” culture. But, all that said, they still saw the value in preserving culture and customs whenever there was nothing to be gained by changing old traditions. This is between relatively equal, Christian, advanced, European cultures. Obviously when the British came to India or China or South Africa, with their machines and philosophy and science and better virtue, they were superior to those cultures. But I think they were also able to appreciate the good in those cultures, precisely because they could also discriminate against the bad. The modern idea that every culture *must* be equal, because to say otherwise would be bigoted and discriminatory, is certainly a modern idea.

   7. “Our current industrial society is definitely adding to the warming,”
      —————————————
      Nice going pal.
      Any more leftist claptrap you’d like to add like “men and women’s brains are the same”?

      1. Now we know who the moron is!

      2. Not sure whom you’re quoting, but it sure ain’t me.

   8. Religion is blue pill. Besides being obvious bullshit, if you believe in Christianity you will be a virgin on your wedding night and then proceed to have one woman; making sites like this one of very limited value.

   9. My thinking was very much along these lines as I read the above posted article.

      1. Thanks; glad to know I wasn’t the only one who felt that way.

   10. “Anybody who bothers to study the dogmatic theology of the great religions, and especially Catholicism, sees that there is a great depth of intellectual rigour and philosophical integrity… far greater and far clearer independent thought than is to be found in the mass of ignorant and inconsistent opinion amongst today’s “free-thinkers.” Besides, anyone who can’t see that the loss of religious conviction – a concern with ultimate truths – is part and parcel of the descent into feminism, relativism, multi-culti insanity and the whole rest of the “blue-pill” worldview, needs to pay closer attention.”
       This was a funny trolling comment; I thought it was a joke but then I saw you actually defended it in your comments. Amusing blue pill statements with big claims and no evidence. Tons of intellectual rigor… world created in 6 days type stuff. It’s funny how people approach the Bible as a work of non-fiction. “Religious conviction = a concern with ultimate truths” … did you mean a concern for ultimate scams, such as pay no taxes and ask their “flock” to give them money? If you believe in any dogmatic unproven statements, you are not concerned with the truth. That’s exactly what you’re guilty of here as well.

       1. Very true. It’s funny that even the theologians 500 years ago said not to approach the Bible as a work of intellectual rigor because they saw that much of the content in it was blatantly false. It is hard for me to believe this guy (Cui) is not trolling. He could just be a typical 90 IQ American though.

       2. Spoken like a true illiterate in the fields of history, philosophy and religion.

3. Very nice summary. Perhaps the greatest lie we were ever taught was that there are such things as right and wrong. Things will keep happening around you and only you can tell yourself what happens next. If you think about it, nobody is really there in your life. You chose who you have in your life at any given moment. Everyday is a battle against nihilism. I don’t like to think about it too much because its anti-game but its difficult to believe in a purpose when you have to constantly manufacture one. You only know a few things as a man. You know that society is fraud, your dick likes pussy, you need game to fuck pussy, food tastes good, working out is hard, playing by societies rules is tricky and really it’s all just some bull shit in the end. Where we all go? Who the fuck knows…who the fuck cares. Just don’t try to punch the ticket early…fools like steven hawking haven’t…so you have no excuse. Tell yourself it matters and it will. Emotion is not your friend. How’s that for positivity? Really though, we weren’t designed to feel. The less you do the easier it is. Have a drink boss and tell them brezzies out there today…hey! happy friday! Lets play! LOL 😉

   1. If you think “the greatest lie we were ever told is that there is right and wrong,” and you say “who the fuck cares?” about where we go when we die, then:
      1) you have already lost the battle against nihilism (because your views are practically the definition of nihilism).
      2) you have also lost the battle against rational thought… because if there is no right and wrong, then there is no “lie” to tell about it, and if there is even so much as the possibility of an eternity of loss and regret, then only a fool would be indifferent to the matter.

      1. You seem like a gentleman who is well traveled and twice as informed. I stand corrected. Please do share your experience with my humble self for I am still in training.

   2. If you don’t believe in right and wrong then you necessarily subscribe to situational ethics. Situational ethics is the very essence of the feminine mindset, it’s how their entire view of life is shaped.

      1. I’ve seen many of your posts on here and they have always been inherently logical and informative. Please do enlighten me more on this subject. Any pointers are most appreciated.

         1. Good and evil exist. That said, the question is what is good and, by extension evil. I endorse a nearly hedonistic lifestyle, no mistakes, but there is a limiting point. Do you kill a child for a bag of weed? I wouldn’t. Hence, a limiting point. Why limiting? I’m taking away from another life. Specifically I’m removing the power of agency, the ability for that life to succeed or fail as it will. If I take that life, I take free will from it. A point of Good, if you will. Upon this all moral codes are based (not by example of course).
            I appreciate your response, thank you.

   3. When you appear before the Throne of the Lord God Jesus, you will change your tune. By then I believe it will be too late, but that is for Jesus to decide.
      Seek Jesus now, for tomorrow may be too late.

4. This article was frankly… A bit shit.

   1. too much apex fallacy

5. Great article! I take this as incorrect though, in bold for emphasis:
   If you asked the noble gentlemen of early England whether they would
   ever consider recording a video of their girlfriend giving them a blow
   job, watching a bloody UFC fight or playing a computer game like Grand
   Theft Auto, they may have suggested that you weren’t a real man and
   needed to be taught a stern lesson from your parents for thinking in a
   different way to the gentlemanly culture that they firmly believed in.
   In 1914 normal sports routinely included blood, mangling and sometimes even death. Look up the history of football/rugby (they started as the same sport). They were literally clothslining each other on the field, lots of blood was intentionally drawn (without penalty) and the crowds couldn’t have been happier. Boxing (pugilism back then) was particularly violent, and admired. We are no more nor less savage then as we are now.
   As to porn, the problem wasn’t the will, but the technology (video). I collect antique paper ephemera, and I can assure you that there is absolutely no shortage of nudes and porn which comes from the 1800’s through the early 20th century. In fact one of the very first pictures taken with the new daguerreotype system in the 1850’s was of a naked woman.

   1. “”Boxing (pugilism back then) was particularly violent, and admired.”
      Back in 1914, they didn’t have boxing gloves. Note that boxing gloves actually allow you to hit harder than bare knuckle. Gloves (and wraps) are designed to protect the hands, not the head. The only reason boxing seems less violent is because it’s easier to cut with bare knuckle, but you can’t hit as hard. If you take MMA, guys get their limbs ripped in half. At the time, very, very few people knew what submission was and had ever seen it before. This is why people were so shocked when Royce Gracie was choking out/submitting people who were almost twice his size with ease when the first UFC came around.
      “And men standing up for their views and way of life is a good thing, not something from an outdated era.”
      Is this some kind of a joke? This is a glorification of the past taken to an extreme. Most people throughout history were always puppets and they were always ignorant. It’s the people at the top that really determine what’s going on. Everyone else just gets caught in the crossfire. Do you really think most people actually stood up for what they believed in during 1914? Keep in mind that very few societies were democratic at the time and most were aristocratic in some form or another (most empires were aristocratic with a king). The entire point of an aristocracy is to prevent the masses from having any power or say in what happens. The point of an aristocracy was for the elite to use the masses as puppets.

      1. This aristocracy still continues today, although its form and membership requirements have changed.

      2. Hmmm. And do you think that people today are not also very ignorant about anything other than a very narrow field? Even those considered “educated” take very little interest or pleasure in the independent pursuit of knowledge. True the illiterate peasant of yesteryear was not in a position to critique the campaigns of Julius Caesar, but neither is the modern semi-illiterate youth. (Or more directly relevant to make any sort of well-thought out historical, economic or scientific analysis even about modern developments). And that is without taking into effect the corrosive effect of the all-pervasive propaganda made possible through radio and television. Moreover, you ascribe to the nobility a very narrow existential function (objectionable both because too narrow, and because it implies a far too rational development – i.e. no one “designed” an aristocracy, rather it came about and its power waxed and waned over time) and seem to imply that Democracy will, tautologically, produce a less ignorant mass of people, regardless of circumstance, which is nowhere substantiated.

   2. We need to bring back legal dueling, too.

      1. This may be the best the thing I’ve heard in forever. Sign a legal contract and have a fucking fist fight to the death. Imagine the viral videos. Bonus, people would be more polite with each other.

         1. Your great enthusiasm for my comment has led me to up-vote my own comment. Thanks for making that happen.

6. Very good article. Men, under a relentless feminist campaign, have been emasculated and disenfranchised. However, I believe this will have a reversal by nature, as civilisations are built by beta men.
   Here in the ROK, we give beta men a lot of shit. However it was beta men that built civilisation under a level playing field of just laws. The Futurist has written several articles about how market forces and nature will bring us back to the normal. In one article (26 page essay) called The Mysandry Bubble, the writer gives an account of how we got to this point and how he predicts the future will enfold. Here is an excerpt:
   1)”Learning the truth about how the female mind works is a precious and transcendant body of knowledge for any man. Whether he uses it to become a fully immersed pick-up artist, to create a soulmate bond in a lifelong monogamous marriage, or even to engage in only infrequent yet efficient trysts with women, a man is free from the crushing burdens that uninitiated beta men are capitulating under.
   When a man learns that there is no reason for him to buy a $50,000 car, $20,000 ring, $50,000 bridezilla festival, overpriced house contrary to any logical financial analysis, or a divorce lawyer to save him from ruin even though he was the victim of spousal abuse, there is no greater feeling of liberation and jubilation, equating to a windfall of $2 Million for all objective and subjective purposes. When a man realizes that reducing his income by half will now have little detriment to his sexual prospects, he can downsize to an easier job with a shorter commute and lower stress. When a man learns that appeasing a woman is the exact opposite of what he should be doing during the process of romancing and seducing her, that entire humiliating gauntlet of rituals can be jettisoned.
   The ecstasy of two or even three concurrent relationships with women of substantially above average beauty are quite attainable to a man who has scaled the summit, which further deprives the hapless betas (again, male attractiveness to women is zero-sum in a way that female attractiveness to men is not). Thus, while 80% of men have no intellectual capacity to grasp and master the Venusian Arts, if the number of solid practitioners even begins to approach 20%, multiple parasitic beasts, from female moochers to the tax-swilling state to the corrupt real-estate and divorce lawyer industries, can be effectively starved. ”
   2)”Adult Entertainment Technologies of 2020 : What of the 80% of men who cannot conceptualize the Venusian Arts? Won’t they be condemned to live a life of frustration, humiliation, and near-slavery as second class citizens? Thankfully, these poor souls will experience a satisfactory release through technology, just like women did through technologies such as contraceptive pills, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners.
   For a number of reasons, Internet pornography is substantially more addictive to the male brain than the VHS cassette or ‘Skinimax’ content of the 1990s. When yet another generation of technology diffuses into the market, the implications will be profound enough to tear the current sexual market asunder.
   I have written in the past about how haptic, motion sensing, and graphical technologies would elevate video games to the premier form of entertainment by 2012. 3-D/holographic images with haptic interfaces and sufficient AI will make rudimentary ‘virtual sex’ a technology available to many men well before 2020, but by 2020 we will see this cross certain thresholds that lead to a dramatic market impact far greater than contraceptive pills and Internet pornography combined. A substantial portion of the male population will drift into addiction to virtual sex without even realizing it.
   For those (mostly women) who claim that the VR sex of 2020 would not be a sufficient substitute for the real thing, that drawback is more than superceded by the inescapable fact that the virtual woman would be made to be a 10/10+ in appearance, while the real women that the typical beta male user has access to would be in the 4-7 range. Real 10 > VR 10 > Real 7, making irrelevant the claim that a virtual 10 is not as good as a real 10 (under 1% of all women), when the virtual 10 is really competing with the majority of women who are 7s and lower. Women are largely unaware how vastly different the male reaction is to a 10 relative to a 7, let alone to women of even lower scores. As single men arrive home from work on Friday evening, they will simply default into their VR immersion, giving a whole new meaning to the concept of ‘beta testing’. These sequestered men will be conspicuously absent from the bars and nightclubs that were the former venues of expenditure and frustration, causing many establishments to go out of business. The brains of these men will warp to the extent that they can no longer muster any libido for the majority of real women. This will cause a massive devaluation in the sexual market value of most women, resulting in 8s being treated like 5s, and 35-year-old women unable to attract the interest of even 55-year-old men. The Wile E. Coyote moment for women will move a few years ahead, and the alphas with Venusian Arts competence will find an even easier field of desperate women to enjoy.
   Another technology making advancements in Japan is that of lifelike female robots. While I do not believe that ‘sexbots’ will be practical or economical relative to software/gaming-derived solutions, theJapanese nonetheless continue to make surprising progress. Competition between technologies is always productive for the consumer.
   Some ‘feminists’ are not blind to the cataclysmic sexual devaluation that women will experience when such technologies reach the market, and are already moving to seek bans.”
   3) “Globalization : The Third Horseman is a vast subject that contains many subtopics. The common theme is that market forces across the world eventually find a way around legislative fences constructed in any one country :
   a) Islam : Aside from the higher birthrates of Muslims living in the same Western cities that ‘feminists’ reside in, an Achilles heel of leftists in general and misandrists in particular is their unwillingess to confront other cultures that actually do place restrictions on women. In Britain, Islamic courts are now in operation, deciding cases through Sharia principles. British divorce laws are even more misandric than US divorce laws, and so many British men, in desperation, are turning to Sharia courts in order to avoid the ruin that British law would inflict on them. The Islamic courts are more than happy to accomodate these men, and ‘feminists’ dare not protest too loudly. By driving British men to Sharia courts, misandry is beautifully self-defeating. The irony is that the group that was our enemy in the War on Terror will be indirect yet valuable allies in the ‘War on Misandry’.
   b) Expatriation : While America continues to attract the greatest merit and volume of (legal) immigrants, almost every American man who relocates to Asia or Latin America gives a glowing testimonial about the quality of his new life. A man who leaves to a more male-friendly country and marries a local woman is effectively cutting off a total of three parasites in the US – the state that received his taxes, the potential wife who would take his livelihood, and the industries he is required to spend money on (wedding, diamond, real estate, divorce attorney). Furthermore, this action also shrinks the number of available men remaining in America. The misandrists who project their pathology outward by calling such men ‘misogynists’ are curiously troubled that these same men are leaving the US. Shouldn’t ‘feminists’ be happy if ‘misogynists’ are leaving? We thus see yet another example of ‘feminists’ seeking to steal from men while not providing them any benefit in return.
   The more unfair a place becomes, the more we see talented people go elsewhere. When word of US divorce laws becomes common in India and China, this might even deter some future taxpayers from immigrating to America, which is yet another reason the government is losing money to misandry.
   c) Medical Tourism : The sum total of donor eggs + IVF + surrogacy costs $150,000 or more in the US, but can be done in India for just $20,000 at top-quality clinics that are building a strong track record. While most customers of Indian fertility clinics are couples, there have been quite a few single men opting to create their own biological babies this way. While this avenue is not for everyone, the ability to have a child for $20,000 (and even two children in parallel with two different surrogates in a two-for-one bundle deal for $35,000) now exists. The poor surrogate mother in India earns more than she could earn in 10 years in her prior vocation of construction or housecleaning. It is a win-win for everyone involved, except for the Western woman who was priced out of the market for marriage to this man.
   Medical tourism also prices the US healthcare system out of contention for certain procedures, and the US healthcare system employs a large number of women, particularly in administrative and bureaucratic roles that pay them over twice what they could make in the private sector. Such women will experience what male manufacturing workers did a generation earlier, despite the increasinglly expensive government bubble that has kept these women’s inflated salaries safe for so long.
   So as we can see, the forces of globalization are far bigger than those propping up the current lop-sided status quo. ”
   4) “Male Economic Disengagement and Resultant Tax-Base Erosion : Earlier passages have highlighted how even the most stridently egomaniacal ‘feminist’ is heavily dependent on male endeavors. I will repeat again that there will never, ever be a successful human society where men have no incentive to aspire to the full maximum of their productive and entrepreneurial capabilities.
   The contract between the sexes has been broken in urban America (although is still in some effect in rural America). The ‘progressive’ income tax scale in the US was levied under the assumption that men who could earn 10 times more than they needed for themselves would always do so, for their families. A man with no such familial aspirations may choose an easier job at lower pay, costing the state more than he costs himself. Less tax revenue not just means fewer subsidies for single mothers and government jobs for women, but less money for law enforcement. Less tax revenue also means fewer police officers, and fewer court resources through which to imprison men. The ‘feminist’ hypergamous utopia is not self-financing, but is precariously dependent on every beta man working at his full capacity, without which the government bubble, inseparable from the misandry bubble, collapses. Misandry is thus mathematically impossible to finance for any extended period of time. A state with a small government is far more sustainable than a state seeking an ever-expanding government, which then cannot be financed, and descends into a mass of contradictions that is the exact opposite of what the statists intended. See the gangster capitalism that dominates contemporary Russia.
   These Four Horsemen will all converge at the end of this decade to transfer the costs of misandry from men onto women, and on 1/1/2020, we will assess how the misandry bubble popped and the fallout that women are suffering under for having made the mistake of letting ‘feminists’ control their destiny. Note that I did not list the emergence of any Men’s Rights Movement as one of the Four Horsemen, as this is unlikely to happen for aforementioned reasons.
   For those who dispute the Four Horsemen (I’d like to see their track record of predictions to compare against my own), women had their Four Sirens, and now it is men’s turn to have theirs. Keep the Four Horsemen in mind throughout this decade, and remember what you read here on the first day of 2010.”

   1. I don’t necessarily agree with him on everything he says.

   2. For those that haven’t read this yet…http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/mom-superglues-scrotum_n_5525040.html

      1. did you notice the most horrific suggestions for this woman again, come from female posters?
         It’s amazing. whatever happened to the ‘gentler sex’? Gods i hope we never have a female president, she’s likely to order a nuclear strike on Ohio.

         1. Well, there is a very good reason why, according to some more “redpill” interpretations of Greek Mythology, Zeus was said to have mandated Hephaestus to create woman (Pandora) as specific punishment directed at man for failing to maintain the sacrificial rites demanded by the Olympian Gods. Wonder where they got THAT idea from those crazy old toga-sportin’ misogynists of the Ancient World?

      2. This article from that same site was much funnier.
         Before I pass a semi in the oncoming car lane coming up on the crest of a hill…..lemme take a selfie.
         LOL
         http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/collette-moreno_n_5529795.html

   3. I don’t think most men back then were ‘beta’. Beta seems a rather modern invention, caused by men who have decided to NOT become the feminist programmed manginas we see around us. Men back then wouldn’t suffer their woman’s disrespect and might well back hand her if she got out of line, and this was socially accepted and approved of, even by women. They worked hard, drank hard, fought each other for fun and many had mistresses on the side. How much more motherfuckin’ alpha can a guy be?
      The modern “alpha” that I see, some of the time (not always) is generally somebody who thinks the only thing that makes him great is getting his dick wet. They seem to lack a lot of crucial masculinity in other areas of life. Our forefathers, by and large, did not lack these traits. A true alpha in the social sense is the man who is in control of everything regarding his life, who governs his passions and expands his intellect, and who is a leader of men, where pussy flows like water but is a secondary concern.
      Call a guy in 1914 a “beta” and explain to him what it means in the modern context and he’d belt you half way across the room, pick you up and then proceed to kick your arse a second time. He’d then go home where his wife had a meal dutifully prepared for him, he’d eat it while his family attended to his needs, and then he’d go to bed and fuck his wife three ways to Sunday. Beta? Pshaw.

      1. @ghostofjefferson:disqus. You can agree that they where male providers and that these are been marginalised.

         1. I do agree that they were male providers. The difference is that they went into an honest deal and received an honest return and accepted no substitutes. No man from that time, that I’m aware of, would have put up with his wife slutting it up and his daughter getting tats and piercings and dissing him. Being a provider does not make you beta. Betas are providers, but not all providers are betas.
            And yes, providers have been marginalized these days. I’m stating that what we call “alpha” now is not what would have been “alpha” 100+ years ago. Any normal man back in the day would make most modern “alphas” shake in their boots in fear. Betas, in my view, really are a modern feminist invention, and God how plentiful they’ve become.

         2. what’s missing from the equation and what’s caused all the chaos is the ‘back of the hand’….
            people will hoot and whine and say that violence is never acceptable, but this is just another load of propaganda from weak willed, weak minded and physically weak people who don’t want to be led.
            there are plenty of moments in life, when the threat of violence is the only means of conveying the message and establishing who is the boss. it is as simple as that.
            the classic James Bond character is able to be so cool and calm and command attention with those around him, precisely because he’s a cold hearted killer on the inside.
            take that away and what you have is slutty, tattooed daughters and unruly wives riding half the neighborhood.
            the threat of physical pain and or death makes people sit up and shut up…. granted it’s been abused in all manner of ways, but that doesn’t make it invalid as a means of maintaining authority, provided it’s done in the correct way.

         3. I absolutely agree with you on that Ray. When I open carry I can tell you for a fact that everybody, and I mean everybody including the cops, treats me like I was the dominant male in the state of Ohio. Deferential, submissive, polite in ways that just don’t happen when they can’t see my sidearm (I’m not a cop or detective, I simply open carry). Why? Because of that violence potential, it’s my conveying of the message “If you mess with me too much, I will kill you dead” that clearly causes the change.
            And women. Damn, they almost get a clitoral hard on in my presence (most of them). What I’m saying is that your observation is spot on true and demonstrable in real life.
            The back of the hand, and a lot of other minor missteps that accumulated over time, the most major being allowing women to vote, has gotten us to where we are today. It’s a long journey out of this mess.

         4. Damn. I didn’t know Rambo was here reading ROK.
            If the cops pulled their guns on you, would you really go out in a blaze of glory, or would you immediately surrender and let them arrest you? I think I know the answer.
            As far as the clitoral hard-ons you speak of, I strongly doubt they’re for you. When a tubby, internet warrior openly carries his gun into a Chipotle, he’s still a tubby internet warrior. Those engorged clitorises are in your own mind.
            *Clitorises, clitori, not really sure what the plural of clitoris is!

         5. You clearly live in some kind of blue state, so you don’t understand a lot of what goes on in my neck of the woods.
            This is an open carry state, child. The police don’t draw down on you for exercising a right, in fact they’re quite polite since they’ve been trained and briefed since the first day at the academy to respect our 2nd amendment rights. I’ve had exactly three conversations in public with cops, and every one of them was casual, polite and consensual, none resulted in guns drawn, none resulted in “show me your id”.
            There is a growing open carry community in states where it’s legal, which you clearly don’t know about nor understand. Next time, try thinking before you speak, or at least researching a bit so you don’t make such a spectacle of yourself in public.
            As to “tubby internet warrior”, I can only assume you’re projecting, which is fine, but not everybody is out of shape and chomping Chipotle, amigo, some of us care for our bodies and form.
            As to “in my own mind”, doubtful, unless winks and smiles and looking me up and down appreciatively are imaginary. Imaginary winks, weird, didn’t know such things existed. Believe it or not, some very attractive women actually like masculine men as opposed to waify metro-sexual city boys. True fact.
            Stick to things you can either prove or can cite as fact, otherwise you’re out of your league.
            Slainte

         6. We don’t talk or answer to women here, Ghost, you know that.

         7. Hmmm. Sue your local police dept in modern America and see what happens. You won’t win. SWAT teams all over the country are chomping at the bit to unconstitutionally raid your house and confiscate your weapons. GIve them a reason. They will do it. They WILL get away with it.
            I think by openly carrying your weapons around you are exposing yourself badly. You’re putting yourself on all kinds of law enforcement radar. For what reason? Do you live in such a dangerous area that you must do that?
            I’m all for law abiding citizens carrying weapons, concealed of course. Even getting a CCP exposes you badly though.
            When this system comes crumbling down, you will be the first to be raided or least harassed by corrupt Gov’t goons, as you have pronounced to the world that you have guns and are willing to use them against the establishment. Do you need that kind of trouble? Wouldn’t it be better to keep your mouth shut, keep a low profile and stay under the radar?
            While I respect your bravery, I find your apparent arrogance to be off-putting. Keep your guns to yourself and be quiet about them. The openly tough guys who are bragging about their weaponry are the easiest and immediate targets.

         8. I highly doubt you talk to women at all.

         9. Well played. Wrong, but you scored your point. crack open a champagne cocktail and celebrate with a GTA victory lap.

         10. tats and piercings are a relatively modern invention in the west

         11. clitorae

         12. The brave are always the first to die. Openly carrying your guns around is the ultimate blue pill expression, at least in America. It basically says, “I’m a self-perceived badass who has the balls to carry this gun in a really safe environment where nobody else is really openly armed.” I must tell the whole world that I’m tough because I can go to a Walmart and buy an Ar-15, then be ALLOWED to carry it around.
             If you were openly carrying your guns around in Iraq you would be an immediate target. It’s easy to be a tough guy and openly sport your guns while walking through a air-conditioned Target store to impress unarmed women and children. It’s quite another to carry them in a war zone where people will shoot first and ask questions later.

         13. Thank you. I hope to one day find myself in a position where I can use that word to describe an event in my life.
             For example, “I’m naked on my bed surrounded by numerous clitorae.” I’ve had plenty of mediocre singular clitoris, never numerous clitorae at once.

         14. Served in Iraq. What you said is generally true. If you were alone and carrying a weapon and not immediately identifiable, you would be immediately engaged with gunfire. NO questions asked.

         15. You have a point, but if his state allows it and he wants to do it then I say who cares. I guess nobody hassles him at the walmart self-checkout anyway lol.

         16. I would like to add that, while open carry will definitely keep the lower scum away from you as they see you sporting it, the real gangsters, if they truly want to rob you or bring you down, will simply drop you before you can even see them and react – much like in the war zone scenario alluded to above. That was actually one of the major arguments for CCP over OCP, if you must carry a gun at all.

         17. Armchair warriors are the worst kind. Anyone who has fought in battle will tell you that you can have as many guns as you fucking wish; you will still feel out-gunned.
             All these doughy open carry tough guys are the worst. Most have no idea what war is about. That’s why they carry their guns with them as they walk into a Chipotle, then onto Gamestop. It’s easy to carry a gun when nobody is shooting back.

         18. Nothing like the thought of being stared down through multiple unseen barrels pointed at you to put the fear of God in ya, isn’t there? Even Rambo had enough sense to maximize stealth and surprise over open bravado suicide.

         19. Exactly. For most that openly carry, they’re insecure and think that people are impressed that they’re carrying a gun. Fact of the matter is they’re stupid, arrogant, and are making themselves easy targets.
             Take for example to the shooting of the two cops in Vegas several weeks ago. When the shooters went into a Walmart, they were engaged by a guy who had a CCP but zero tactical experience. He was shot in the back, by a women no less. The gun was meaningless because he obviously didn’t have enough experience to analyze the situation and cover his rear.
             Just because people can carry a gun, doesn’t mean they know how to use it. Anyone dumb enough to openly carry an unconcealed gun demonstrates that they are not in a tactical mindset. They are amateurs at best.

         20. Indeed, and I would suggest anyone look towards those who are forced to “open carry” in addition to being trained in the use of firearms as to how they comport themselves in public or on their jobs. Do you see bank guards standing right before the bank entrance waiving at passer-by and showing off their cool svelte belt with pistol and clip holders? No. They are usually in a corner inside the bank out of direct sigh but well in place to react should the need arise (or to call for backup when overwhelmed). Do you see armored security truck personnel lounging about while the truck is loaded proudly flashing their shiny piece? No. They are discrete and alert like highly attuned predators to their environment, keeping a careful eye on things and anxiously waiting to GTFO ASAP. Do you see SWAT proudly strolling on down shopping malls waiving their MP5s, AR-15s, Benellis and other gear, laughing and joking while gleefully showing all the defenseless civilians just how badass they look? Again, No. They are brought in by armored personnel trucks, they do their job, and are brought back out to base camp.

         21. Openly carrying your weapons is totally Busch League. I’ve never met a single military vet or cop who openly pronounces that he is armed. They know better than that.
             Guys who openly carry are incredibly beta. “Look at me! I have a gun! Please! Everyone look at me! Just don’t shoot at me!”
             They have zero understanding of tactical applications of weaponry.

         22. On the other hand, I heard that gold-plated AK-47s proudly brandished in public make you a veritable pussy-magnet in Liberia. Might want to book your ticket now.

         23. After reading this comment thread, I think you effectively eviscerated the open-carry crowd’s weak argument.
             Gun’s are made to be heard, not necessarily seen.

         24. Bro, you’re lame. It comes across very heavily in your writing. You’re not the badass, gun-toting tough man that you want strangers to believe you are.
             HAHA! Women don’t wink at guys you douche. You just made that shit up. How fucking old are you? You must be over 60. Ask any attractive man if he’s ever been winked at! Are you taking your cues from a God damn 1930’s Mickey Mouse cartoon?
             You’re a faggot. Put that gun to good use and put it in your mouth.

         25. “Should a cop draw down on me and demand I surrender my gun, of course I would, that is only prudent. I’d then take him to court and sue his department until their balls turned purple, as they lose qualified immunity if they deny us rights under color of law, here in my state.”
             You should study the law in your state. If you have an arrest on your record (even w/o a conviction) for getting involved in any way with the police while armed, you can kiss your guns goodbye, old man. This is not the 1950’s. You get into ANY altercation with cops while armed, and you will NEVER be able to legally own a gun again. This is 2014. Get with the program.
             If you’re expecting due process to come to your rescue regarding gun issues in 2014 America, you are sorely misguided and ignorant.

         26. Probably true. If you fuck with the cops while armed, you’re in deep shit. The local PD will likely be forced to turn the case over the the FBI, or ATF, or another federal agency at least at some level; meaning you will lose your guns at the very least. Any ‘rights’ granted by your state will go out the door very quickly.
             Piss and moan about the injustice all you want to your state legislature. The issue will very likely fall on deaf ears very quickly.
             Better to just keep those guns hidden out of sight.

         27. Wyy do they have to? The gangstas are voting – for more gangstas to run everything. You described a military ambush. That’s too much work for that crowd.

         28. My post above was intended to show that those who actually need to bear arms during their professional duties do not feel the same need to flaunt it (and flash it) the way some proponents of open carry seem to. That is all that was meant by it.

         29. Keep on carrying brother! I conceal carry 1- because I live in one of the worst gun states in the country, and 2- because I think it to be more effective for protection. But I sure as hell won’t call you a Beta for you choosing open carry. Sound like we have a lot of San Francisco Liberals on this site, dreaming of some Utopian Gun free society. I’ve personally had to pull my sidearm in Self Defense, and let me tell ya it’s god damn effective!

         30. No idea it was a woman. No plies to it forthcoming.

         31. Can’t recall saying I have an arrest on my record, Bill.

         32. Yeah, you’re alpha for hiding in the shadows, you pussy.

         33. Right, because military hides their arms.
             The numbers don’t support your Jack Bauer mindset.

         34. You understand you’re collaborating with a woman, right?

         35. Blah blah blah.

         36. We win all the time, guy. Do your homework.

         37. Spare me your “please license me” propaganda, I don’t live in Iraq. If you are scared and need to hide your rights, that’s your issue, not mine.

         38. Something that has happened so few times that you’ll find 2 instances, 2, of it happening over the last 30 years. Stop being a coward.

         39. Right, because soldiers never openly carry their M4’s. Idiot. Screw tactical, embrace deterrence.

         40. No, but you see their sidearms. Tell me its not so.

         41. Wasn’t aware until just now, not continuing.

         42. Women should not be allowed to vote for the same reason minors are disenfranchised.

         43. I am scared of what’s going on in this country, You should be too.

         44. Yeah, soldiers. Not civilians. I think you’re missing the point. You’re too busy insulting everyone you don’t agree with.
             Screw tactical? You’re an amatuer. It shows.

         45. You mad, bro? Don’t get your panties in a bunch over it.

         46. Seems you’re being purposely obtuse.

         47. Oh? What have you done “pro”? I’ve OC’ed for years, probably while you were still in high school. What have you done?

         48. Fear has little practical application. It serves as a warning, but only that. So I get picked off first, as if hiding and licensing will get you further. No offense (honestly), but I’d rather be up front during this phase and time in our history.

         49. Right on man, carry on. Lots of these leftist who think they’re conservatives forget that not every state is like NY, IL and CA. Lots of us flyover states, gasp, have some remnant of liberty. Whodathunkit?
             Thanks for your input Big, slainte!

         50. Where did I indicate that I have an arrest on my record?
             Actually due process works here, in my flyover state. I can understand if it doesn’t in yours. Move, is my recommendation.

         51. Honestly, you took time to post that? Seriously?
             If I’m lying then what’s the point and such and you’ve demonstrated weakness by responding, and if I’m not you’re an idiot with a very ingrained insecurity complex. Where’s the win here for you? Sometimes you should consider before you hit the “Post as” button.

         52. Well, the more violent and repressive the man, the more scheming the woman and vice versa, by necessity. Only an insecure man, or one married to a slattern needs to use violence or the threat thereof to have his wife’s respect.

         53. Really? But surely you would not kill someone or threaten someone because he was impolite? There is nothing wrong with owning a gun, providing one does not wave it around in somebody else’s face (which is not what at all something I am implying you are doing) It just seems that one extreme has lead to many people just taking up another equally irrational one.

      2. I’m pretty sure that’s not how it worked back then.
         Men were not punching their women around (without consequence) and then vigorously fucking their wives every night (without consequence).
         If you punched your wife back then, you better believe you had to explain why to her father, brothers, cousins, uncles, etc. God help you if you punched your wife while in a drunken rage and these men found out about it. You would likely be beaten savagely in an alley attack, but not to the point where you couldn’t drag yourself into work the next morning. There were severe consequences for that type of behavior.
         Birth control was very inefficient back then. After working 16 hour days, if a married couple had the energy for sex, they likely thought twice about it as they didn’t want any more children. People were not fucking like crazy back in those days, at least not like they do now. I’m sure they wanted to, but reality made sure they didn’t.
         Don’t look at the past with rose-colored glasses. LIfe was hard back then.

         1. Alert me to where I said punch, number one. A smack to the face, open palm, not hard but with intent, was quite often practiced however.
            Also, oral and anal sex were invented for very specific reasons, very very long ago. I’ve also read quite a few articles of modern persuasion which posit that husbands and wives were in fact, fucking, a lot more than they are today (again, speaking of husbands and wives here). Lack of stress on the woman allowed her to focus on her femininity more, and men were less stressed since they got to come home to a house that was clean and with a meal ready. That shit goes a long way towards achieving sexy time, and it’s simply not present any longer (except rare outliers).
            Then there was the mistress. I knew several men from the WW2 generation, when I was growing up, who had a woman/women on the side. Hell, my grandfather had at least two on the side (that we know of in my family). And that’s amongst a generation of men at least 1 or 2 later than the 1914 chaps.
            These are not rose colored glasses, there were many things in the past that sucked. However, men were tougher, far more dominant and far more masculine than they are now (generally speaking), and they were the unchallenged leader of their family (in a public face kind of way). Surely you’ve read of the rapidly declining testosterone rates in men, that alone informs that men from the past were far more “alpha” than what passes for a man these days.

         2. The world was a tougher place for the average person back then. I do not doubt that men AND women were a lot tougher back then.
            Then you make this statement…
            “Lack of stress on the woman allowed her to focus on her femininity more, and men were less stressed since they got to come home to a house that was clean and with a meal ready. That shit goes a long way towards achieving sexy time, and it’s simply not present any longer (except rare outliers).”
            Women were incredibly stressed out back then. They worked extremely long days maintaining the home, and many worked long hours outside of the home. When your child dies of influenza, I’m pretty sure you get stressed out. I really think your view of the average person’s life 100 years ago is a bit skewed.
            I will agree with you about declining T-levels in modern men, and the general weakness of modern men. That seems to be readily observable. However, there is also a glut of men on the planet that did not exist 100 years ago. 100 years ago, all the pussy-ass men we see would have been killed in large-scale military conflict. There are just simply more men around. Perhaps it just appears that they are bigger weenies than they used to be because there is such a larger population of then to observe.
            I’m sure there were plenty of pussy-ass men back then, but the military would have made sure they either got extinguished in combat, or survived and returned to society as more of a hardened bad-ass. I cannot say for sure. That’s just my theory.

         3. I don’t think anyone invented anal or oral sex. I’m pretty sure it just comes naturally to human beings. Don’t overthink these things.

         4. In other words, the women of the day could have potentially held you by the balls by simply badmouthing you to their extended male family members and, so long as these were a bunch of right tough bastards able to give you real trouble should such things come their way, you would have essentially become trapped like a dog with no way out.
            No wonder I tended to avoid chicks associated with such extended familial clans. It’s the old survival instinct kicking in again.
            Though now they can just outsource that task to the good ol’ boys in blue always standing by at your friendly neighborhood precinct.

         5. I am pretty sure that a man’s member tends to curve upwards when erect in order to naturally aim for and guide him towards the higher orifice when approaching a female from behind, does it not? Otherwise, how would you explain that little quirk in our anatomy? And yet, the lower primates still seem to get it right despite this natural “suggestion”. Quite the mind bender don’t cha think?

         6. Oh come now, taking care of home and hearth is hardly as stressful as keeping a multi-million dollar industry afloat. Everything in context brother.

         7. Well, I’d like to agree, but women were not “more feminine”. In most of mainland Europe women were busy working just as hard as men in the fields. The myth that women didn’t work externally is only strictly applicable to middle-class or burgher class women in towns. Moreover, the fact that your grandfather had several mistresses while married is only circumstantial evidence hinting at his unfaithful character, something which we cannot generally ascribe to the whole population at large without solid evidence.

      3. A big difference then to now, was that each man was largely in charge of his destiny, and much less artificially restricted in how to shape it. That in and of itself made him more “alpha” to women around him. There were still hierarchies, but your average man didn’t have to beg Jefferson permission to have a cigarette after dinner.
         As game goes, this meant that for most women, the buck stopped with their husband. He was their leader, and someone they depended on. If he was completely useless (or just unlucky and got mauled by a bear), they still had the option of returning to daddy, or perhaps a married sister, but there was no army of self aggrandizing hope-and-changers controlling half her husband’s income; who made her hubby crawl on his knees in front of them every morning, day and night; simply to be allowed to breathe; the way things are now.

   4. I would like to point out that the shit we currently give our present-day betas is not for making civilization possible (a well recognized and duly appreciated contribution) but rather for becoming such spineless wimps along the way. For these same reasons, provider-men of yesteryear would not have automatically been considered beta according to our current definition, unless they ALSO happened to be spineless wimps as well (something much harder to get away with during those heartier times, as society did tend to whip you back into line).
      In effect, the closest the men of 1914 could have come to today’s version of the beta male would have been by becoming someone like Al Capone’s accountant. And even then, they would not have been treated with kid’s gloves by the more brawny men of the day (i.e. most men), though their work and expertise surely would have received a certain minimal degree of (grudging) appreciation.

   5. “Some ‘feminists’ are not blind to the cataclysmic sexual devaluation
      that women will experience when such technologies reach the market, and
      are already moving to seek bans.”
      Shit, I think I called that one years ago…just as feminists in Brazil killed male birth control in the crib (heh) they would DEFINITELY seek to limit “misogynistic portrayal” of women in Virtual Reality. And I bet the gubmint would gladly supplicate and make their whims law as well.
      After all, who are they gonna get free drinks and dinners from if the betas have all cashed out and are at home with their cutie hologram girlfriend who does anything they want on demand and can take on any form they desire?
      Heartiste has said it as well; when the betas finally give up and fully withdraw, that’s when the shit will go down.

      1. See also, grasseaters of Japan
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men

      2. Thing is, I’ve seen men who had convinced themselves that they loved their fat, bossy, ungrateful wives. How do you fight delusional thinking to that degree?
         Men seem to be fully capable of eating quite a lot shit, and with a huge grin on their faces in the process.

      3. We need virtual sex. Women get virtual attention, so why shouldn’t we get virtual sex?

   6. Hell of a fucking post Mark. Looks like we still have a few prolific posters still here. I wonder what happened to the others?

      1. thank you. Although most is information of the net which I wanted to bring to the discussion. ATM I am writing my 2nd and 3rd article for the ROK, the first is due to appear in the next two days.

   7. Please publish this. Excellent. Can someone please invent the virtual woman thing? Can you imagine that? It would be the male equivalent of social media for women.

7. Superb article, indeed the future seems bleak.
   2040, AI becomes sentient? Then maybe the Terminator and Neo from the Matrix are definite and realistic possibilities in the future.

   1. Dont forget HAL

      1. More like HER (the 2013 movie).

8. Nice article! Hopefully this doesn’t happen:
   “If what TV documentaries like Through the Wormhole and Brave New World are telling him is true, then he may be looking at a life expectancy of 100-150 years if he can make it to 2045, when many scientists expect it to be possible to significantly increase human lifespan.”
   Can you imagine what your quality of life would look like from age 130 – 150? God… just take me out and shoot me! I’ll take 75 years on this planet — much more than that and I think I’d rather take the $0.15 solution instead.

   1. Weekly TRT and HGH injections would be the the only solution

   2. Im sure the females in the 100-150 year range on POF will be easy to nail.

      1. lmao.

9. Terminator and the matrix might come true! Fuck! I’m all for living longer but, computers that can overtake us…not so good.

   1. I suspect true sentience will never come to pass with computers. It’s been a pipe dream of futurists for a long, long time, but given all of the massive effort that technical people have applied to making it come true (for the love of Pete, why?), it just doesn’t seem to pan out. We’ve gotten some wonderful predictive, heuristic and data mining tools from the effort though, so it did give some decent return.

      1. logical silicon chips are not going to cut it, but biological genetically engineered brains just might…. organic computers will eventually take over and this is when things get interesting…. science fiction and even magic is not impossible or fantasy, it’s just stuff we don’t understand yet…. don’t forget that a bic lighter would seem like magic to someone 1000 years ago. Gun powder was the work of the devil 500 years ago.
         being able to reappear and disappear would seem like magic until you understood the workings of a teleporter.

         1. Organic computers might do the trick, I was speaking strictly of the CPU silicone obsession our society currently has. Biological would work because it’s, well, biological, we’d just have to induce intelligence in a guided manner on a living organism, as opposed to trying to make a mineral “think”.
            That’s a long, long way off though. We can’t even get chimps to do more than a few rudimentary sign language signals, and most of what they say is gibberish, nonsense or “Hey, I like fruit, give me fruit”. If we can’t get something that is 99.6 percent exactly like us genetically to cross the gap, the chances of inventing a whole new life and getting better results is rather slim. Doable, but slim.

      2. We will never be able to teach computers to think until we learn to think ourselves… and by that time, we won’t need them to think for us.

      3. “given the massive effort that technical people have applied to making it come true (for the love of Pete, why?)”
         Technical people are beta geeks with a taste for vengeance. If computers and robots rule us all it’s a form of revenge.

         1. Fair thought, but I’m not honestly sure that’s it. They seem oblivious to thoughts of the future, they don’t hate us so much as they want the next big rush that comes from solving a problem.

10. One minor quibble. The Samurai did NOT think that their way was the only way of life and would disembowel you for suggesting otherwise – they believed that it was the only correct way of life for THEM. In fact, peasants were not allowed to own swords and a lot of the surviving historical records of the time often refer to “The Way” of X. The way of the sword, the way of the merchant, the way of the farmer, the way of the artisan, etc. They explicitly believed that there were several acceptable paths through life and that devoting yourself to one was key. They simply had a very specific hierarchy of vocations with the emperor at the top and peasants at the bottom.

    1. So then their way was viewed as the right way, and that way was known as the Japanese caste system. They had 200 years of cultural isolation at one point. Seems pretty closed minded to me.

    2. Samurais were the ultimate alphas.
       I will never forget the story of the Japanese general who, in the midst of seeing the battle on the sea being lost, stood on the edge of his ship and took his sword and cut off his own head.

       1. Thats stupid, not alpha.

          1. I agree, a lot of Japanese history was about stupid, not alpha.
             and while it may work for the Japanese, it’s insane to think it would work for the Europeans. By global standards, the Japanese have always been absolutely OBSESSED with death. All their literature glorifies it, their fiction almost always ends in it, their heroes always welcome it…
             Frankly, I think it’s a symptom of chronic overpopulation.

       2. Yeah, I’ve been really interested in Japanese history/culture for a few years. They were definitely more of the “wolf alpha” type in that they didn’t generally fuck a ton of bitches or anything like their European counterparts but they (and their women!) were extremely honorable.

          1. Indeed, despite their submissive posture and mannerisms, many of their women were also well-versed in martial arts and would not hesitate to defend the family household to the death when threatened by marauding bandits. None of this “hiding under the bed like a frightened mouse while hoping the men with guns show up in time to scare off the big bad intruder” nonsense. Now there’s a woman one can respect!

11. again with the life expectancy crap.
    Life expectancy among men has barely changed a year since 1914, dumbshit. What has changed has been INFANT MORTALITY RATES!
    Do some fucking research before you spout off.
    The rest of the article was fairly decent (Minor errors and inconsistencies) but that one pisses me off as much as the old ‘.75 per 1$’ canard.

    1. Chill out bruh it doesn’t really make a difference.

       1. Actually, it does. Minor historical revisionism and Apex Fallacies are the weapons the changers use to rewrite history.

          1. I know you’re right but you’re getting so angry for no reason.

          2. I have a reason, it’s just not a very GOOD reason.
             Just like those idiots that say ‘There’s never a reason to hit a woman’. There’s lots of reasons, it’s just not that many GOOD reasons.
             Righteous indignation is a better reason than many, though, and it certainly clearly points out an error… and perhaps the next person to write a scholarly article will do slightly better research into historical Fact.
             And it’s not like I am angry enough to pull up to his house and shoot his dog… Hell, the police can legally do that without even having to be angry.

12. Great post but lacking in depth. In regards to the section on marriages and divorce, divorce rates were so low at the turn of the century because Arranged marriages were relatively common in the U.S. until the first half of the 20th century.
    Divorce rates in western society have climbed in correlation with the increase in autonomous marriage rates. The lowest divorce rates in the world are in cultures with high rates of arranged marriages.
    Fathers married their daughters to men based on their wealth, accomplishments or aristocratic title; Without consideration to the girl’s choice. Love matches were coincidental andvery uncommon.
    If a woman didn’t honor her marriage vows, she could risk being alienated from her family, ostracized by her peers and dying alone as an old maid; Poor and disgraced.
    In modern society, it’s the exact opposite. Due in no small part to no-fault divorces, which led to a six-fold increase in just two years after a century of stable divorce rates.
    Now, a woman is able to abandon her husband for absolutely no reason and take custody of a man’s children at his expense; In many cases where the man has done nothing wrong.
    Meanwhile, her friends cheer/egg her on as she moves back in with her father, who doesn’t shame or shun her, to rest until she find a Beta with a mean kowtow, who is willing to raise another man’s children and trust me, she won’t have to wait very long.

    1. Spot on, good post.

13. “If you asked the noble gentlemen of early England whether they would
    ever consider recording a video of their girlfriend giving them a blow
    job, watching a bloody UFC fight or playing a computer game like Grand
    Theft Auto, they may have suggested that you weren’t a real man”
    I would say the same thing today.

14. Since the Federal Reserve and the IRS were both founded in 1913, one thing that hasn’t changed is that we’re still taking it up the ass.

    1. Without the Federal Reserve, we would live in a dramatically poorer country now. The gold standard imposes an artificial and completely unnecessary Malthusian constraint on the economy which leaves people unemployed and resources lying unused.
       Just ask yourself why one advocate of the gold standard, the “Austrian” economist Murray Rothbard, argues that under that system parents should have the freedom to starve any or all of their minor children to death without interference. Apparently Rothbard knew that the gold standard would lead to famines, and parents would have to triage and sacrifice some of their children so that they would have enough food for the remainder.
       I’ve noticed that reporters like to ask questions about politicians who associate with people with controversial beliefs. Ron Paul knew Rothbard and wrote an introduction to at least one of Rothbard’s books. Why hasn’t anyone asked Paul if he shares his friend Rothbard’s views on child starving?

       1. Murray Rothbard was right. If you fucked up and had too many children, why should I support them with my taxes? They are not mine, and I do not care about them.

       2. …did you really just try to recruit starving children to support the Federal fucking Reserve??

       3. Yeah, I am all for “Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan” creating paper scams and buying up real assets and political power. Sarcasm.

       4. You don’t need a gold standard to be independent of a central (read: outside) bank. The American Colonies had their Colonial Scrip, Lincoln had his civil-war era Greenbacks, Nazi Germany had their own fiat currency.
          the colonies and germans were very successful economically due in part to their monetary system. And in all three cases, there were gunshots (one of which was directed straight at Lincoln) due to international banker disapproval.
          A gold standard can still be used if there’s some kind of built-in float (i.e., the fiat-gold exchange rate can be adjusted within certain boundaries to account for population growth or monetary supply shocks).
          Regardless of a fiat system or gold standard, as long as you have stable prices without debt or interest owed for money-printing, you’re good to go.

       5. How cute, a red neck with straw-grasping white knuckles 🙂

15. “Back in 1914, a man could follow a set life path and not have to worry too much about the slowly changing world around him. It was clear that he needed to grow up, get a job, get married, have a family and then prepare for retirement and death.”
    I agree, right up until August 1914……

    1. The world was NOT slowly changing around men in 1914. The automobile, electricity, women’s suffrage, etc. Lay off the bong next time.

       1. You must be American. As such I can’t expect you to know what happened in August 1914 that stopped millions of young men from getting married, having a family and growing old.
          https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=historic+events+august+1914

16. “…He is free to believe whatever he wants, say whatever he wants and argue
    about whatever he wants without having to worry about being burned at
    the stake.”
    This is a bit off. North American ‘culture’ has never been so hostile to liberty/free thought as it is today.

17. For a good comparison/contrast, look a photos of major league baseball players in the USA from 1914 and today.
    Look at how carefree, smiling, and nonchalant many of the ballplayers are today. Now go find one from 1914 who is like that (hint – it might take a while).

18. I wish I was around along time ago, the world is just… so small now…

19. Average height a hundred – two hundred years ago, even in places like the Netherlands, was around 5’2″ – 5’5″. Better nutrition has led the growing populations all over the world, and I think this is nice. However, longer lifespans and more free times have sapped the spirituality from human beings and we do everything either for sex or convenience.

20. Life expectancy – the 1914 stats are heavily skewed by infant mortality. The life expectancy of people that survive past (say) their tenth year is more interesting and relevant.

21. “Some things change, and some do not. You may be surprised at how it all shakes out.”
    This sounds like an Upworthy article title. That’s not a good thing. Constructive criticism for this post’s writer: don’t imitate anything from Buzzfeed, Jezebel, or Upworthy.

22. A lot of the hopelessness and despair that many people are experiencing nowadays, in the year 2014, is directly due to an overemphasis on materialism and a lack of any spiritual/religious outlook on life.
    I’d go so far as to say that the root cause of the problems of the modern world is not feminism, but atheism.

23. On today’s day 28th June, one hundred years ago –
    The gunshots that change history

24. We need communism to halt the theft of the working class by the ruling class.

25. 2014 –
    UK facing ‘major’ sperm shortage
    The UK is facing a major sperm shortage that may be tempting fertility clinics to accept poorer quality sperm, the British Fertility Society (BFS) warns.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28061263
    ————-
    But don’t worry science will save us, according to the author. LOL

    1. MEN ON STRIKE! Men are simply afraid they are going to have an army of kids hunting for them in their later years. But they need to go into the college dorm rooms and showers LOL

26. Anyone who’s not a little worried about what’s going on in the world isn’t paying attention.

27. “Humans were the smartest beings on the planet. We were destined to rule the world forever. We were forming stronger governments, getting better at enforcing laws and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of society.”
    Humans were so smart back in 1914, it’s not like they entered into a needless cataclysmic world war which killed 20 million men and destroyed the most civilized continent.

28. What a dumbass article.

29. A man is often seen as an “optional extra” rather than an “absolute necessity” in the life of a woman, which has left many men in 2014 feeling confused about their value and purpose in a woman’s life.

    Which only amplifies the importance of hewing strictly to your value and purpose in your own life. If she insists that she can take care of herself, let her!

30. The meaning of life is having and raising your own (mentally and physically healthy) children. We born, grow, reproduce and die. That’s it.
    Whoever tells you something fancier or harder to achieve is trying to: (1) control you; (2) take advantage of you; (3) sell you something.
    NO MORE BULLSHIT PLEASE. THE TRUTH IS A PATH, NOT AN END.
    LET US QUIT ALL THE DRUGS THAT THE GOVT. ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO SELL US:
    Alcohol
    Tobacco
    Sugar, chocolate and processed foods
    Coffee
    These drugs turn us into obedieper cowards and make us even more addicted to that primitive feeling of satisfaction that comes from having political power over our fellow men.
    NO MORE BULLSHIT PLEASE. WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER ARMED REVOLUTION TO TAKE BACK OUR FREEDOM.
    Free your mind and disobey.

31. I like how there is an Indian man getting intimate with an Asian woman.
    I know for sure, more white chicks will be dating black men. Get use to it my white brothers 😉
    And I believe what George Carlin said on standu

    1. Standup….. And to paraphrase:
       The world isn’t going to die…….WE are. For billions of years the earth has gone through its natural process of digesting and shitting out whatever it thought was not fit, like dinosaurs, and other living things.
       Until then just live life as it is! The Zeitgeist, and just have fun!

32. The more things change the more they stay the same.
    “Men” still use other “men” to fight their wars for material gain and power. Look at WW1 a central banker orchestrated affair, just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Some men never learn.
    Men wasted their time going into debt then as they do now to “increase” their odds for pussy. When I look at the collection of “leaders” in America I feel like I am looking at some ultra bad reality TV program.
    Tolstoy chased pussy til his pecker was raw. Then he transformed into something higher. He was disgusted with the same crap going on in his time that is a carbon copy of today. At some point you detach from the shit show and look for something higher.

33. A man is still expected to be strong mentally, emotionally and physically.
    I think this is what rankles so many men both within the manosphere and society at large. On the one hand, we now live in an era of feminism and equalism. Men are expected to treat women as equals, cede positions of power to them, and endorse the notion that women are equal to (or even better) than men in just about every single way. Men are considered misogynistic monsters if they believe in traditional gender roles that situate men at the center of power. Any manifestation of “male privilege” is regarded as an abomination.
    At the same time, men are still expected to uphold traditional masculine responsibilities. Men are still expected to do all the heavy lifting in courtship, be chivalrous, “man up” (notice the rise of “where are all the good men?!” articles) and white knight on behalf of women.
    Athlone McGinnis once wrote an excellent old article called “The Hypocrisy of American Feminism” which touches more on these double standards.
    While it’s easy to bemoan the lack of masculinity among so many men today, it’s understandable when you consider the fact that society has become increasingly feminized, pathologizes masculinity at every turn, and doesn’t provide the traditional power and respect that was afforded to men for fulfilling masculine responsibilities.
    Don’t get me wrong, I still believe that men should strive to better themselves and cultivate masculine values. However, society as a whole is delusional if they expect men to “man up” and make all these sacrifices without offering any incentives in return.

    1. Pretty much the jist of it. There are no incentives unless you want to be a father for men to man up, and even then your children can be stripped from you at the whim of your woman. Too much liability if you ask me. As long as I can be stripped of my children and my money, I see no reason to man up and I won’t. If women and society as a whole don’t want to change the rules, well then they can all go fuk themselves.

34. Although there I agree with some of the genuine constructive criticism, I liked the article. Good work Mr. Bacon, and say hello to your cousin Kevin for me, ok?

35. “Science is telling us that AI (Artificial Intelligence) will become
    sentient by 2040 and when that happens, it will be able to link minds
    with other AI to become millions of times smarter than humans.”
    The writer seems rather caught up with this notion known as “the Singularity” (which by the way has nothing to do with singularities in astrophysics).
    Well, you can stop worrying since nothing of the sort will occur. The robots won’t ever get “smarter than us”. Doing logical operations is something that might be done by an intelligence, but intelligence by itself, as in logical reasoning, isn’t consciousness.
    Consciousness, on the contrary, is related to the weird and inexplicable faculty of sensation, evidenced in any organism with the slightest trace of a neural system. It simply has nothing to do with the ability to calculate very large numbers. The AI people just haven’t got a clue. If they did, my pocket calculator from 1979 would have been conscious to some extent, since it clearly is way better at calculation than a paramecium (or even me), but clearly not even the internet is about to “wake up” any time soon. And since “strong AI” is simply consciousness by another name, no computer will ever become conscious, or ‘self aware’, period.
    The second reason this techno cult of the “Singularity” is hogwash is related to the simple matter of energy consumption. We are rapidly approaching the point where demand outstrips supply in a number of critical areas and we are in fact already in the process of crashing headlong into the limits of growth. But this technotopia of self aware machines and human longevity demands an extraordinarily energy intensive society and corresponding amounts of resources and global economic growth. It simply won’t happen because there just isn’t enough juice in the barrel to go around.
    “Strong AI” has been lurking just around the corner of the ’30 years into the future’ scenario since the 50’s, not entirely different from the predictions made about fusion eventually powering the human species, which is arguably a less complex set of problems.
    Millennial generation optimism as urged on by a couple of Boom generation greybeards is completely unfounded. Trust me, it won’t happen. A Mad Max future is more likely.

    1. Spot on. I’m giving your comment five maryjane-shaped stars so that we can all get high.

36. One of the better articles that we’ve seen here. We live in a world of constant change and illusions. I recommend books like “The Four Agreements” by don Miguel Ruiz to navigate through the shifts that life brings us so that we do not get tugged by the constant fear of ow knowing what lies ahead.

37. “which has left many men in 2014 feeling confused about their value and purpose in a woman’s life.”
    Not really, men have concluded that women shouldn’t and won’t determine the value and purpose for men, nor will they define what it means for men to be men. Men have and will continue to decide en mass to go their own way.

    1. No way. Our message hasn’t gone far enough. It’s made great moves, but it’s still not mainstream.

38. 22 year old guy with a shitty beta father, who was never around. I wish there was a book young men were given when they turned 16 that laid out all of the truths and needs of being a man…
    Shit why don’t I write that FUCKING BOOK!

39. http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/warpictures/trenches/images-trenches/09-trenches-after-the-bombardment-gw000.jpg
    1914?

40. Great article. I really like your optimism and willingness to embrace the future. Great message.

41. Nice to see the transhumanity prospectus intersect with masculinity discourse out here.

42. The graph you posted on climate change is simply wrong. Sorry, this is a shoddy attempt at an article and misinformation.
    Current CO2 concentrations are at 400 PPM, which is significantly higher than it has ever been in history – according to your graph.
    http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/
    (BTW, it took me literally 2 seconds to fact check that…..)

43. http://youtu.be/VrqnE1hOS4s this song fits here i think

44. You left out living in a trench and then charging into machine guns with a bayonette because some fancy Arch Duke died out of the “1914” category.

45. “If you asked the noble gentlemen of early England whether they would
    ever consider recording a video of their girlfriend giving them a blow
    job, watching a bloody UFC fight”
    1. It’s MMA, not UFC.
    2. People engaged in boxing, hunting and bloodsports frequently. Back then, boxing was bloodier than modern MMA fights as well.

Comments are closed.