One Historian’s Dystopian Vision Of Our Near Future

It is easy to get hung up on squabbling about the hot button issues of the day (feminism, creeping socialism, immigration, and Planned Parenthood’s sale of murdered baby parts) that we lose the big picture of where our civilization is headed.

John Michael Greer is a historian who gives us that big picture.

His prognosis for our current technological civilization is bleak. If Greer is right, our civilization has already reached its peak and we are starting a descent that is going to result in a complete restructuring of the way we live our lives, including rampant unemployment, increasing violence, and the loss of technology. In other words, Greer believes we are on the verge of a new dark age.

A 21st Century Gandalf


I will be the first to admit that at first glance, Greer seems to be an unlikely source of wisdom about the future. His background is unusual, to say the least.

One could say that Greer, who was born in 1962, is a real world Gandalf. He got his start writing about his involvement in a magical group modeled on the famous Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. The Golden Dawn was a group that operated in Great Britain in the late 19th and early 20th century. Its membership included some of the brightest literary minds of the time: W.B. Yeats, Arthur Conan Doyle, Arthur Machen, and the notorious Aleister Crowley.

To practice Greer’s version of magic requires one to be broad. A Golden Dawn-style magician must be well versed in philosophy, history, religion, and even science—and Greer amply fulfills this obligation.

Dissatisfaction With The Current State Of Civilization


I also suspect that J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings played a big role in Greer’s formation. Lord of the Rings has a negative view of some of the 20th century developments that destroyed the strong communities of village life, cut down trees, and replaced them with impersonal cities. I believe that Greer is attracted to the simpler life described in Lord of the Rings, and this lead him to question how long our technological society could survive.

End Of The U.S. Empire


Greer’s points out that the United States has been an empire since the country consciously embarked on that course during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. The imperial system has worked to enrich America and its allies, but, according to Greer, it has reached its zenith and has now started to decline.

Destruction Of The Manufacturing Sector


There are several causes to the decline. One is that US dominance has allowed American companies to move their production to cheaper countries. This has destroyed the US manufacturing sector and turned America’s industrial heartland into the Rust Belt.

The exporting of all manufacturing jobs has created an imbalance within the American job market. Because most of the productive jobs have been moved out of the country, the only way to make a living in the US is in what Greer calls “office fauna” jobs.

Office fauna roles are things such as project managers, human resource managers, corporate image consultants, and strategic marketing specialists. Office fauna jobs are pure overhead—it costs a lot of money to maintain huge staffs of people who basically do nothing productive.

Now, the US has an excess of people who are educated to do office fauna jobs and a shortage of people who have more useful skills. If times get tough, those office fauna jobs will go away. Greer writes:

[f]or the time being, the United States can afford to offshore jobs, or import people from other countries to do [vocational or trade jobs] at substandard wages; as the empire winds down and those familiar bad habits stop being possible, the shortage of Americans with even the most basic practical skills will become a massive burden. (From Decline and Fall: The End of Empire and the Future of Democracy in 21st Century America. All subsequent quotes are from this book.)

Political Gridlock


The second cause that is hastening the decline of the American empire is the gridlock of American politics. Greer indicates that this is a sign that the country has reached the maximum diffusion of power. Ironically, this makes it easy for certain groups to line their own pockets. According to Greer:

The last three decades have seen America turn into something close to a Third World kleptocracy, the sort of failed state in which a handful of politically well connected people plunder the economy for their own benefit. When bank executives vote themselves million dollar bonuses out of government [bailout] funds while their banks are losing billions of dollars a year, it is impossible to discuss the situation honestly without using words like “looting.”

It is not just special interests that take advantage of the situation, foreign countries do it as well:

[O]ther countries—China and Israel come to mind—have learned to make use of the diffusion of American power for their own interests. It doesn’t matter how blatantly the Chinese manipulate their currency or thumb their noses at intellectual property rights… so long as they keep their lobby in Washington well funded and well staffed, they’re secure from any meaningful response on the part of the US government.

Greer believes the current political situation is not sustainable. It will either lead to a dictator who will break the deadlock for good or for ill, or it will lead to the US breaking up into two or more regional powers.

A Decrease In Oil Production


Greer’s third cause may be more controversial. He believes that we have reached peak oil production and that the price of energy will slowly begin to increase. This will affect more than just the United States—it will gradually make our entire technological civilization unsustainable.

Oil is a fixed resource—the earth is not creating more fossil fuel—so eventually we will run out of it. Renewable petroleum alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydro, are not cost effective. The only way these alternative energy sources survive is through massive government subsidization. Moreover, these renewable alternatives show no sign of ever becoming economically viable.

Critics of the peak oil theory will point to the fracking industry to show that we will continue to develop new ways of getting more oil. Greer is skeptical. He suggests that the only reason that fracking was created was because the price of oil reached such a high price that fracking became cost effective.

From Greer’s perspective, the current low price of oil—it is below $50 a barrel—is a result of OPEC flooding the market to put its fracking industry competitors out of business. This may be true as half of the 41 US fracking companies are expected to go out of business by the end of 2015.

Critics of peak oil theory, and they are in the majority, say that discoveries of new oil reserves are more than offsetting the slowing production of older reserves. They will point to the low oil price as an indicator that oil supply is outpacing demand, and that it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Peak Oil Effects


If Greer is right that we have already reached peak oil production, our current way of life will become quickly unsustainable. Cheap energy has made our technological civilization possible. Once the cheap energy ceases to be available, society will need to revert to something more like the Victorian age.

But getting there will be incredibly painful. Travel and large-scale international trade would be the first casualties. Production of goods would have to shift back to happening locally.

A decrease in oil production will also result in massive unemployment as the office fauna workers who lack any real skills are laid off. This would result in less need for computers, telecommunications networks, and those people who support these industries.

Greer believes we are already seeing the first effects of this with the fact that the job market never fully recovered after the 2008 recession.

How To Protect Yourself


The people who are best prepared for an American decline may be a group like the Amish—they are pretty much self-sustaining farmers. But Greer believes that it is too late to adopt farming. Events are happening much too quickly to make complete changes in one’s lifestyle.

Instead, he recommends that we adopt the philosophy of living with “L.E.S.S.” which he defines as “Less Energy, Stuff, and Stimulation.” The other strategy is to begin “to adopt the technologies and habits of earlier eras.” The idea is to learn to live with less energy now, while we still have some time, rather than being forced to learn it when everything goes to hell.


Do I believe Greer’s predictions? I think that it is beyond question that America is currently in a state of decline. However, I still think that with the right leadership, it might be possible to reverse some of the decline and breathe new life into the country–at least for the short term. If no great leader steps forward, I agree with Greer that big, unpleasant changes are headed our way in the near future.

On the topic of peak oil, I am less convinced, but I am not as sanguine as our libertarian economists who predict an unending party from here on out. I’ve lived long enough to realize that these promises of “energy independence” never seem to pan out. I do think that it would be prudent to adopt Greer’s philosophy of living with less energy, stuff, and stimulation.

Even when I disagree with Greer, I always find him an enjoyable read and I never fail to learn new things. If you’d like to read more of his writings, he blogs at

Read More: John The Baptist Syndrome

246 thoughts on “One Historian’s Dystopian Vision Of Our Near Future”

  1. Nuclear power is cheap, uranium is abundant, and we have the capacity to build many, many more reactors. Moreover, there may be abiotically generated petroleum (per the old Soviet theory). We really don’t know how much oil there is and where. All we know for sure is that there is a lot of it, and that all past apocalyptic predictions based on resource scarcity have proven false.
    Rather than a global population reverting to an older standard of living all at once and together, I would rather expect increasing automation and AI to make the vast majority of humanity superfluous, as a relatively small banking-super-elite confers upon itself effective immortality (via robotics, genetics, cloning and other life-extending technologies), and actively discourage the rest of us from reproducing, through burdensome taxation, destruction of traditional moral values and other social programming. Life will be good for the scant few that remain over time.

    1. That is exactly what I was thinking while reading this article. Nuclear energy and problems solved.
      That way we can leave society to slowly implode through erosion of values instead of a faster destruction through loss of energy from fossil fuels. Lucky us.

    2. “Life will be good for the scant few that remain over time.”
      I’m 50 years old and quite frankly I envy guys who are 75 years old and older as they have not much time left and will depart this upcoming Orwellian nightmare.

      1. find a young woman. give her a son. force him to study finance and marry a nice jewish girl. therein lies your best shot at immortality.

  2. “The only way these alternative energy sources survive is through massive government subsidization.”
    No, let’s subsidise single mothers instead, and pretend that their children (or grandchildren) will survive when we run out of oil and return 300 years back to the past.
    And it’s not only about energy. Most of the plastic in our world comes from oil or gas. Perhaps there are some technologies for production of plastic from other raw materials, but I doubt it will be enough to substitute oil. No oil – no plastic things. Let that sink in for a moment.

    1. I kind of like the idea of topless hippy girls doing their wicca stuff out in the woods though. I love a topless hippy girl but these days most are fat, I’m sure. What kind of country even has an obesity problem among its woodsy wiccan girls?

      1. Even the girls at Hooters nowadays don’t look quite appealing. Granted they do look better than the women outside of the place, but jeez.

  3. Yes peak oil is nonsense. My engineering buddies have actually done real research on it. Power is getting cheaper and the lack of applying universal laws to the economy is what got us here nothing else. Simply put the economy violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics creating a system where the entropy causes dumb people to acquire a severely large amounts of money through inheritance without having a clue how to appropriate those resources. It causes the people on bottom to starve or get paid less then the labor that’s being done costs to do.
    That’s why ideological bullshit never works when it violates universal laws. You can’t defy gravity.

    1. Power is getting cheaper.
      Examples please? My utilities are out of control (especially water).

      1. Your utility bills will go down when you start voting for yourself instead of voting for the narrative that supports a few in favor of the many or in most of your cases vote period.

    2. “Power is getting cheaper and the lack of applying universal laws to the
      economy is what got us here nothing else. Simply put the economy
      violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics”

      All natural and technological processes proceed in such a way that the availability of the remaining energy decreases.
      In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves an isolated system, the entropy of that system increases.
      Energy continuously flows from being concentrated, to becoming dispersed, spread out, wasted and useless.
      New energy cannot be created and high grade energy is being destroyed. An economy based on endless growth is
      You’re unsustainable
      The fundamental laws of thermodynamics will place fixed limits on technological innovation and human advancement.
      In an isolated system the entropy can only increase. A species set on endless growth is
      You’re unsustainable

  4. Our “civilization” peaked in the 1960’s when technology became sufficiently advanced. By then, physical strength became redundant and was no longer a requirement and “handwork” became “headwork”. This is what led to the surge of women in the workplace post WW2. The invention of “The Pill” forever sealed the fate of humanity.
    Since the dawn of time, human beings have been hunter-gatherers. Between hunting and gathering, then agriculture, and then eventually industrialization, human beings always lived close to nature.
    Men going out to work and women staying at or near home was simply division of labour given the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the two sexes.
    Gender roles developed over thousands of years of evolution and reflect our basic biological traits.
    Men, given their greater biological strength and stamina, took on the dangerous task of going on arduous hunting expeditions to hunt for food, while women mostly stayed at home and took on nurturing and domestic issues.
    Given the unpredictable nature and very high risk of fatality of going on hunting expeditions, eventually, men learned of agriculture.
    This greatly reduced the risk to men when compared to hunting and provided a more reliable and stable food source for men and women. This eventually led to the rise of agrarianism and is the reason why our species has been so successful.
    This is the proto-tribal patriarchy setup. This is how human civilization was for much of our history, and it still is like this today in less advanced and developing countries.
    Agriculture is also very physically demanding labour, which is why men went out to farm, while women mostly stayed at home and tended domestic issues and nurturing. Overall, there was a huge improvement to quality of life of both men and women compared to hunting and gathering. This is how civilization was up until the mid-1700’s.
    In the mid-1700’s, the Industrial Revolution took place starting in the UK. Here again, most labour was very physically demanding, which is why men went out to work and women stayed at home and took on nurturing and domestic issues. Again, there was a huge increase in quality of life for both men and women compared to agrarianism.
    Only 100 years ago, more than 80% of North American population was still dependent on agriculture for a living. Today, this figure is 2% of the total population.
    Up until the mid-1950’s, both men and women were very dependent on each other and families were exclusively nuclear families. Divorce rates were low, out of wedlock births were basically non-existent, and quality of life was at its peak for both men and women.
    Women were required to guard their chastity as sex without prior commitment was very risky, as no reliable form of birth control was available and one wrong move could lead to social ostracization and a lifetime of misery. Pre-marital sex still usually came with upfront commitment.
    However, starting in the 1950’s (after WW2), when we moved past a post industrial economy, physical strength became redundant due to sufficient advances in technology. Work was no longer “handwork” and instead became “headwork”. This is what lead to the rise of women in the workplace and led to the rise of feminism.
    In the 1960’s, “The Pill” was invented and as a result, sex became risk-free for women. This lead to the sexual revolution. Now, women were entirely in charge of their own sexuality and as a result, the necessary bond between man and woman was permanently decoupled and this even further fueled feminism.
    Sex was no longer sacred nor mysterious and instead became a free-for-all sport.
    This led to the rise of “players”, unscrupulous, thrilling, “bad boy”, “alpha-male” men who take advantage of stupid, unsuspecting women. The women, after being duped, cry and complain and get stuck in the dating game because they can’t find a man who’ll “commit”. This also led to the fall of “providers”, hard-working, stable, “good”, “beta-male” men that are not as desirable because they’re too “nice” and not as thrilling to women.
    This led to ever-rising pre-marital sex without commitment, out of wedlock births, abortion, divorce and many other unanticipated social problems. To “remedy” some of these problems and to re-elect themselves to power, successive politicians rewarded women with lucrative financial handouts; this laid the foundation of the welfare state. This increased the debt burden exponentially of the State and set future governments on an unsustainable path.
    Capitalists (people who solely exist to accumulate capital with little regard for ethics) took advantage of the situation and supported feminism as it greatly increased the amount of women in the workforce, which plunged labour wage rates in the market. This helped capitalists reap extraordinary profits.
    That’s why it was possible back in the old days for an entire family of any class to live off of one man working a stable job and this was the norm. Today, most middle class families require both a man and woman to have to work their entire lives just pay off their house’s mortgage.
    Feminism is basically a by-product of luxury and it promotes female individualism and selfishness, conveniently disguised as “equality” at society’s expense. It is a false ideology propagated by upper-middle class white women for their own benefit.
    The problem the Founding Fathers of USA overlooked was they didn’t separate Corporation from State (not that they didn’t try) by Amendment. Today, the United Slaves of Bankistan is in control of a consortium of Capitalists who via proxy effectively run a shadow government.
    The only way out is a downward spiral until we hit rock bottom and governments collapse due to unsustainable debt burden.
    CLARIFICATION: I’m not against free-market Capitalism itself as long as there’s controls in place to make sure Capitalists (which includes the Plutocrat/Oligarch subset, the wealthiest 0.01% of Capitalists who basically control the political process right now) can’t influence government decision making via lobbying, SuperPACs, etc.
    This is a MUST in order to have a true, effective democracy. That’s what I meant by separation of Corporation and State by Amendment; that reference has nothing to do with the Central Bank, which obviously didn’t even exist when the US was formed and whose eventual formation went against the Founding Fathers’ vision.
    Not having a Central Bank is not good enough.
    They obviously knew the dangers of mixing Church and State which is why they separated them by Amendment.
    Also, the “United Slaves of Bankistan” (what we have today), a euphemism for the United States of America, is partly the result of the absence of this basic control mechanism.

    1. Actually women came up with agriculture and watered the first fields with their menstraual blood and afterbirth… they didn’t have to walk so far to forage…..

    2. Actually, the founders did divide Bankistan from government. There was no central bank when we formed. It was tried a couple times but it finally stuck in 1913 with the Federal reserve and the creation of the IRS as muscle.
      And no Capitalists do not run the show. Oligarchs do. Big big difference.
      Plenty of families have a stay at home parent. Those are usually the ones that do not need all the latest toys, garbage and nonsense and they do just fine.
      Premarital sex always existed it was just the people doing were responsible for the results not the society…
      You are wrong on a lot of things my friend.

      1. No, actually they did not separate Corporation from State. TR tried separating Corporation and State with the Tillman Act in 1907 to a limited degree. Obviously the Central Bank was made much after the founding of the United States; that’s not what I’m talking about.
        My point was the ability of Corporations to influence government decision making via lobbying, often when those decisions are against the overall well being of society.
        Stay at home parenting is far less common today among the middle class compared to before.
        Prevalence of premarital sex varied greatly across civilizations but was still overall much lower historically compared to today and usually came with some form of commitment.
        In predominantly agrarian societies with social foundations built upon tribal patriarchy, it was exceptionally low due to controls in place such as honor-killing, compared to non-agrarian societies.

        1. Go look at the face on the $20 dollar bill. Do a little studying on the person behind that face and see why we did not have a central bank.
          People were free to use whatever they wanted as currency so long as it was backed by gold. A “paper” bill is supposed to be nothing more than an IOU backed by gold. That is it. Now we have a fiat currency backed by guns.
          And capitalists do not “sway” government. Those are oligarchs.
          A key element to Capitalism is a free market thus making it impossible for capitalists to influence the government.
          Get it correct. Until you do this conversation is moot.

        2. Capitalists don’t need a Central Bank to influence the decision making process of individuals within government. The Central Bank has nothing to do with what I’m talking about here.
          Also, capital isn’t just whatever “currency” is being used in a given country at a given point in time, whether it be gold or dollar bills backed by a gun. Someone can “donate” 20 acres of land to some bureaucrat and get policies enacted in his favor which benefit him at the expense of society. No central bank required.
          What you’re calling Oligarchs are actually what we today call Plutocrats, which are a subset of Capitalists.

        3. Didn’t Jackson try to keep the banks out? If I remember correctly, the Europeans tried to kill him for it. The source of this issue comes from the central banking cartel. It’s all fucked lol

        4. He did, successfully. That’s back when politicians actually had any semblance of ethics. Unfortunately, not anymore.

        5. “They” don’t need a Central Bank but it sure makes things easier. The existence of the CB is an inevitable consequence of their influence.

        6. He didnt try, he succeeded in eliminating the central bank at the time.

        7. Google “Why the British Kill American Presidents,” then click the first pdf that comes up. It’s only about 10 pages and is a good read.

        8. Free market economy is different from capitalism, though it is related. There is capitalism in socialism, but fewer people have a chance at it. Jekyll Island treachery helped ruin things. FDR ‘reforms’ are suspect. The list goes on. @WisdomSeeker needs to keep seeking.

      2. Plenty of families have a stay at home parent, and they do just fine….I strongly disagree. I knowhave known some, and they struggle. The one parent, usually the woman, stays home and takes care of the kids, and dad works. His salary is Not enough to have a great lifestyle in most cases. Well maybe if they are Mennonites. If they are doing fine, it is usually because they have given up on having things, and excepted their lot.
        Your though are right about Premarital Sex.
        Could you expand on the Oligarchs?

        1. Oligarchs are a small group of people with exceptionally disproportionate amount of social power (far beyond democracy) and control of some sort. This power could be either corporate, religious, military, etc.
          The only true Oligarchs left nowadays are Plutocrats, who are really just extremely wealthy Capitalists (top 0.01%’ers), people like Koch Brothers.

        2. Thanks, and you were right about materialism helping to kill this country. People wanting the next version of everything, even it is has only just been renamed. As in the latest Cell Phone, Gaming system…ect.

        3. Funny you mention the Koch brothers, but somehow overlooked the ethno-religious group that has overwhelming money and power in this country

        4. Soros?
          The Koch Brothers represent the productive part of the economy – their companies make things. The business of the Kapo Soros is to bet against central banks. He is the classic illustration of Keynes’ observation – that it is better a man tyrannize over his money than his next neighbor.

      3. There was indeed a central bank when we formed the country, as provided for in the Constitution. The first Bank of the United States enabled the execution of the Assumption compromise in which the newly formed Federal government assumed responsibility for all debts the States incurred in the course of the Revolution. It was highly successful. Similarly, the Second Bank of the United States created a gold-backed currency which it used to keep state banks from expanding too rapidly the money supply. The Bank did this by always presenting whatever State notes they received for redemption in US Treasury notes to the state banks. When Jackson illed the renewal of the 2nd Bank, he distributed the government’s business among the state banks owned by faithful supporters. WIthout the redemption pressure from the USB, we had the classic credit inflation boom and bust by the end of Jackson’s second term in office.
        The Fed is, strictly speaking, not a central bank, and is certainly not a central bank in the sense of the Bank of England or the Bundebank. Those are indeed state institutions with a Chancellery appointed like any member of the cabinet.
        A 4rd USB with a previous metal based currency would be entirely constitutional.

    3. Exactly. The much vaunted “free market” is dying of its own internal contradictions. Everything you’ve mentioned in your last 1/2 dozen paragraphs is indicative of late-stage capitalism. We are moving towards a publicly-owned economy slowly but surely. The dialectic has a life of its own; that’s the real “red pill.” Hoping for a return of capitalism in some pure form is “blue pill.”

      1. By far the dumbest thing I have read in a long long time.
        We have not had a free market in well over 100 years and when the market was free we had one of the greatest expansions of wealth ever for American society as a whole.
        What rocks do you people live under. Free market capitalism is the red pill in its purest form.

        1. The greatest expansion of wealth for American society as a whole was between 1945-72, which is not 100 years ago. The period you’re reveling in was the time of robber barons, child labor, and most people crammed into tenements or stuck on dirt farms.

        2. “Robber barons?” Stopped reading after that.
          After WWII, the only first world country that did not have it’s industrial base destroyed was the US. Thats were the source of “wealth” expansion came from. This after loaning out huge sums of money to friend and foe alike and giving them deep discounts (aka. debt forgiveness). The boomers had it good, but the world has changed.

        3. Britain’s industrial base was largely unscathed, and also expanded due to the war. Ditto Canada. Even W. Germany’s and Japan’s industrial output returned to pre-war levels by the early 1950s. Thanks for playing. And since you mentioned WWII, you obviously kept reading.

        4. “Britain’s industrial base was largely unscathed, and also expanded due to the war. Ditto Canada. Even W. Germany’s and Japan’s industrial output returned to pre-war levels by the early 1950s. Thanks for playing. And since you mentioned WWII, you obviously kept reading.”
          Rationing didn’t end in Britain until 1954, and they were on the winning side. Japan, Germany, and the British empire all took huge losses in manpower and wealth, the USA entered late, lost almost nobody (400k), and had a homeland entirely untouched by the enemy. The expansion of 1945-72 is never going to be repeated anywhere ever, much less the USA, because it was a unique event due to all competition not been able to compete.

        5. Yeah. Robber baron was the term SJW’s used against successful businessmen that made a difference not because of government but against the forces of government.
          I seriously lol’d when I read that gem “Robber Baron” Governments are the robber barons. Not true capitalists and free markets.
          RDC, you are the definition of Dunning-Krueger. Step away boy.

        6. Nigga please. It’s Dunning-Kruger. If you’re going to use fancy terms to accuse someone of incompetence (and you know nothing about me, so STFU), at least learn to spell. Maybe you’ll get some respect. Now get off your mom’s iPad.

        7. Britain’s manpower losses were only a fraction of what they were in the First World War. And Britain’s industrial base had nothing to do with rationing. Even the Soviet Union, with obscene losses in manpower and industrial base–although much of that was moved out the way of the advancing Germans–became a superpower soon after the war ended.

        8. Wow you got me…
          Not ever anything to refute my point… Mr. Robber Baron. A spelling error. You are so smrat….
          HEY EVERYONE RCD WINS THE INTERNET. He picked up an auto-correction spelling error.
          He has his big girl training bra on.
          I am amazed someone like you even is alive. So perceptive. To pick up on a spelling error. Floored. Totally floored.
          It is like you came down from the heavens to Spell Check or something.
          What would society be with out you. Time to build a monument.

    4. Women were known to work in the fields, doing strenuous and dangerous work during the early Medieval period. Check your facts.
      It is a feminist illusion that women did not or were “prevented” from working by men. Women have always worked except in very affluent families, when they did not need to. Don’t fall prey to feminist propaganda.

      1. And once you point out to the feminists that women of yore indeed had to do strenuous work then they’ll switch gears and bitch about how unfair that was while simultaneously crowing about “If you need a man’s job to get done then send in a woman.”

        1. Yeah, they earned less (because obviously a woman cannot lift as much as a man – physics says she cannot do as much work as a man) but feminists will use this as an example of sexist discrimination.

        2. Yes. They are the main reason. They’ve killed the family, K-12, Higher Ed., political logic, boys, pop culture and they are currently stalking the military and corporate America. It’s over. The culture war is over. All that is left is to fly the bird, minimalize and watch as the next war comes along which will be the splitting of the left into rival ‘apex victim’ clashes. The feminists will clash with black America etc. White girls who are 200k in college debt will have to clash with someone over funding. Hillary is already making noise about trying to pay off all the white girl debt. So some other entitlement crew will beef over that. Sanders getting run over by B’lack L’ives Ma’tter idiots is just a preview. It’s going to be hilarious. The utter absence of rationality is going to be beyond belief. Get your garden going, learn 20 ways to prepare beans, Get a large freezer, fish and hunt, freeze your catch, cut your wood, buy your Costco whisky and sit back and be entertained.

        3. Absolutely! But, it is always men doing the mistreating of other men. As our divorce judges and child support slave chasers, and men who will tap into a married woman, breaking up her marriage and turning her husband into a state of misery, then brag to their fellow workers what a good thing they did.
          I don’t deny women serve their role. In WWI, militant feminists started calling men cowards for not rushing to defend their stupid arses. Gave them white feathers to accuse them of being cowards.

      2. “Women were known to work in the fields, doing strenuous and dangerous work during the early Medieval period.”
        This may have be somewhat true in Medieval Europe to an extent, but was definitely not true in Eastern civilizations (such as Medieval India, Medieval Islamic countries, etc.) and is still as such up to this day. My OP was obviously very broadly speaking with generalizations but nevertheless, the narrative was correct.
        Most strenuous and dangerous work, such as ploughing fields, digging wells/ditches, etc. was done almost exclusively by men while while women mostly stayed at home and tended child rearing, milking cows, knitting, sewing quilts, etc. The work they did on the fields was planting seeds, picking berries/fruits, harvesting vegetables, etc. which doesn’t require any upper body strength. Being a wife and mother was actually a full-time job.
        “Women have always worked…”
        Of course woman have always “worked”; my point was prior to industrialization, this was mostly on or near their settlements in villages and the “work” overall was reflective of their inherent biology, which universally includes less overall upper-body strength compared to men.
        Take all the paper shuffling/technology/government safety-net away, and most of the so-called, “strong”, “independent” women will go back to being stay at home moms just like it is right now in most third world countries.
        Honestly, you’re giving them much more than their fair share of credit.
        Arguing with feminists is a no-win situation; corner them with one argument and they’ll cry victim and switch to another.

        1. Of course the most strenous work, and any truly dangerous work, is allocated to men.
          However carrying heavy loads of water long distance is traditionally regarded as woman’s work. This requires some physical strength. No where near as much as digging a well of course, but some. Planting, harvesting fruit and vegetables also are moderately strenuous, especially by modern american standards.

        2. “Being a wife and mother was actually a full-time job.” Careful man, that’s what feminists say.
          Look there is no doubt that arguably men did the more dangerous and strenuous work. But there was no risk-free work up until maybe a 100 years ago.
          Women in the third world are not stay-at-home moms. This is a recent and Western phenomenon. It is only since the income of the average man improved that women began to stay at home. And it is only now that the income of the average man is being reduced that women need to work again.
          Before WW2 men couldn’t afford to have the woman stay at home. She needed to be out there working. Not only that, the children were out working too. The only reason kids don’t work now is because the government prevents it. Mate, my mother worked, my grandmother worked (as a child as well) and so did my great-grandmother. This idea of stay-at-home moms is a myth.

        3. “Women in the third world are not stay-at-home moms.”
          I was born and raised in rural India (my ancestral village has only 20 houses) and I still go there every two years. If you’ve ever been to India or an Islamic country, the overwhelming majority of married women ARE stay at home moms and they work very near their homes/settlements; they’re called homemakers back here. It’s still pretty much the way it was over 100 years ago.
          Most of them actually do tailoring, crafting and basic gardening/farming. etc from/near home and tribal patriarchy is still pretty much alive here. This is not a recent phenomenon and this is not a Western construct. Having recently gotten married to my wife from back here, she only went a major city a few times during her 23 year lifetime, and her parents never let her go outside the house alone without a guardian. The only work she did away from home was at the village school teaching children for a couple of years. Nowadays, over here, it’s still uncommon (but not rare) to find women working away from home. Slowly this is starting to change due to Western influence.
          Working at/near home is still basically being a stay at home mom/housewife; I think this is where the confusion lies in how we’re describing women and their work.
          Women going to work AWAY from their settlement/village long distance is a comparatively modern Western construct. This is not the way it was throughout much of history, when families with 8+ children were very common and could take over 20 years to come to fruition. Once this was done and over with, they did work more on field and tend to motherhood less.
          “But there was no risk-free work up until maybe a 100 years ago.”
          Totally false. 100 years ago, most of the population in North America was rural and dependent on agriculture to earn a living and homesteading was still the norm. Once technology became sufficiently advanced, women stopped being homemakers and basically just started doing whatever jobs the men were doing which also coincided with urbanization, consumerism and the gradual decline of religion.
          Planting seeds, cutting crops, picking fruit, harvesting vegetables, etc. are essentially risk-free work and getting bitten by a snake in the fields was a very tiny, but an acceptable environmental risk that couldn’t be eliminated 100 years ago. In fact, one probably has a greater chance of being hit by a car in a downtown metropolitan city today than being killed by a snakebite 100 years ago.
          “‘Being a wife and mother was actually a full-time job.’ Careful man, that’s what feminists say.”
          Feminists say that being a wife and a mom is a full time job TODAY just to gain the sympathy of the gullible masses into believing their lives are so difficult and they do more than they actually do. Modern conveniences and changes in culture have made a farce of what womanhood once actually was.
          For example, something as routine as doing laundry, which required a lot of time and effort, has been reduced to pushing a button. Raising children with proper values has been outsourced to daycare. Most couldn’t cook to save their own lives and they certainly don’t know anything about feminine virtue and what womanhood actually is.
          I can’t say anything for the specific case of your family in general; it’s not possible to talk about a general post that will cover all societies/civilizations/countries without any discrepancies.
          I agree with you about child labor and people working at the workplace early on. This is mostly because back then, you didn’t really need much education to get around the world. Most of the “education” today is really just spoon-fed liberal pablum.

        4. I understand what you mean but “stay at home” mom means something different in the West than it does in the Third World. Those women you mention are working, the fact that its in the home is irrelevant. If I worked from my office at home I would not be a “stay at home” Dad.
          Likewise you could call a medieval peasant farmer a “stay at home” Dad since he lives right on the farm. Obviously this is not what we mean.
          Btw cutting crops is definitely not risk free. People lose arms and legs doing that. Also, people have been know to lose body parts working with textiles (historically a woman’s job). Tending livestock is risk free until you get kicked in the face by a horse or trampled by a herd of cows.
          Last, I am not sure what you mean by “homemaker”. 100 years ago women were definitely working outside of the home. A family simply couldn’t afford to have a woman at home playing with children. Women worked in textiles, stores, factories etc. The older children looked after the younger children. This idea of a woman staying at home only looking after children is a myth which probably derives from Victorian stories about rich households where men could afford to have wives sitting around doing nothing.

        5. “Stay at home mom” TODAY definitely means something different in the West than it does in the third world. “Stay at home mom” in Western vernacular today is basically a pejorative term (usually meaning staying at home and doing nothing) and a luxury obviously very different from a third world country perspective. However, 100 years ago, the West was basically in a similar state to how many third world countries are right now and the two exhibited similar social structures and behavior. Hence, historically, the two were actually very similar. The mistake I made in the OP was using today’s words to describe something from a different era.
          When I mentioned most women back then were usually stay at/near home moms, that’s a loaded phrase since I didn’t pinpoint what being a “stay at/near home mom” was back then and I didn’t pinpoint what “most women” were actually doing at that time. That’s why the OP caused so much unnecessary confusion, but it wouldn’t have been possible for me to write such a short and general OP that would have covered all bases.
          Most of the population (80%+) made a living from agriculture back then in the West. Most women did have many (6+ was very normal) kids and for the most part, spent their time tending domestic work. Hence, most women did not venture too far away from their homes/settlements to work. Whatever work they did on the fields was supplementary to their primary “job” of running the house as a housewife and raising/taking care of the brood, and not the other way around as it is today. That’s why women were paid less money: the work they did was easier and they also did less work, not much different from today. The supposed idea that women were paid drastically different wages for the exact same work is largely a feminist myth. Once the kids were sensible enough to take care of themselves, they took basic care of the younger kids. When the women weren’t doing that, they were weaving rugs, sewing quilts, washing clothing, sewing/knitting clothes, etc. and teaching the young girls to do that. Woman actually did a lot of useful things besides working on the fields back then and were basically a domestic/internal operations manager. Finding a woman like that today is nearly impossible in the Western world, that’s why I went back home to get married. Likewise, the young boys would learn farming, tooling, construction work, hunting, etc. from their dad, who was basically the CEO of the family farm enterprise and had the final say on anything both inside or outside the house. Hardly anything was ever wasted and all of this was a part of homesteading which kept families self-sufficient and greatly reduced costs. The women were not sitting around doing nothing and this isn’t a Victorian fantasy. That’s what being a homemaker means and that’s the way most women were back then and are still as such in many third world countries. These were the real “strong women” working seamlessly behind the strong man, who could help make or break a man’s farm, not the bimbos we have today who can’t even cook a decent meal. People’s debt overall was much lower back then compared to today simply because they lived within their means. Marriage was literally for life and divorce was a huge disgrace for the entire extended family simply because people believed in God.
          This is still very prevalent in India/Islamic countries. Women are neither required nor expected to work after getting married; it is optional depending on circumstances, which is why dowry (a large lump sum of money paid by bride’s family upon marriage) exists in this part of the world and the old tribal patriarchy setup is still very strong and resilient.
          Obviously there’s differences in Indian/Islamic/third world countries, etc. and North American/European culture, but strictly from an agrarianism perspective, they were pretty much more or less the same.
          I totally agree with you that there were many women of the 20% left over working in factories, assembly lines, textile mills, etc. as this paid better and was a much more stable and reliable source of revenue compared to something as unpredictable as farming. These women were obviously putting themselves in the line of danger in such an industrial atmosphere. These women also probably didn’t have 8 kids, probably didn’t do anything like sewing quilts, growing vegetables, weaving rugs, etc. and were not self-sufficient, instead much more consumerist in nature compared to the women described above and hence cost of “living” for them was higher. However, these were not the majority of women in that era.
          As far as getting kicked in the face by a horse or getting trampled over by a herd of cows, getting gored by a bull, losing a limb, etc., I honestly haven’t heard anything like that happening recently around here in rural India. These types of freak accidents were probably a bit more common back then, but I think we can both agree that they were overall still pretty rare and aren’t really much different from people losing a limb, getting killed on the job, etc. in a factory accident even in today’s setting.
          “Those women you mention are working, the fact that its in the home is irrelevant.”
          It’s actually extremely relevant. This is a key point most people miss. You can’t effectively make and raise a large family of kids and manage a household in a rural farm setting (the farm setting is the core requirement to make a living in that era for most people) if the woman is working a long distance away from home without help from technology. The few rural women that did work away from their farm (let’s say in a shop or school, for example), did so mostly within their village a small distance away where their family obligations wouldn’t be compromised. That’s what the feminists don’t understand. They think that men enslaved women and held them captive at/near their homes against their will without realizing that it was really just a convenient setup that worked excellently for our peasant farming family back then. With increasing urbanization and technology, this setup became eventually irrelevant. That’s why the women (and families overall) were much happier back then (“The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness”). A densely populated urban setting is just not a natural setting for human beings.
          “If I worked from my office at home I would not be a ‘stay at home’ Dad. Likewise you could call a medieval peasant farmer a ‘stay at home’ Dad since he lives right on the farm. Obviously this is not what we mean.”
          Agree with you, it was bad nomenclature on my part. We’ve never associated men with the role of raising/nurturing children at any point in history and it’s never been assumed so, but we have assumed so with women. It’s not just simply a matter of living on the farm; that’s why that nomenclature doesn’t work with men. Anyways, using the wording “stay at home mom”, is just bad wording overall since the meanings of being a wife and motherhood have changed so drastically from way back and women today who stay true to those two words are really just a relic of the past.

        6. My Mexican wife’s best friend for many years was a black lady and I do mean lady of the sort we so seldom see these days.
          She had a book, THE MYTH OF THE NEGRO PAST, published back in the 40’s.
          Y’all have heard that the African women did all the field work while the man sat around? The book describes how that hoax came about.
          A group of First World academics went to an African tribe, and told them to send messengers to their hotel in a nearby town, when it was time to plant the crops.
          So, the men worked for weeks, rooting out tree stumps and clearing the land. Horribly hard and stressful work. Man’s work. While the women did light work in the shade.
          when the land was clear, it was obviously time to plant. so, they sent messengers to the intellectual idiots that it was time to plant.
          They came and sat in the shade while the women puttered around, making small holes in the dirt, and dropping seeds then covering them.
          The men, still recuperating from horribly hard work, sat under the trees and rested.
          The intellectual idiots duly reported that women did all the work in the fields while the men sat in the shade and loafed all day.
          The feminists still repeat that hoax today.

        7. I have noticed here in rural Mexico that when you let teen-agers work, you don’t have much delinquency among teen-agers. Another example of women in charge screwing things up.

        8. People who around horses get hurt. Talk to horse people.
          The only reason you don’t hear much about it is that there aren’t so many horses today as before the automobiles took over.

        9. I suppose you remember when children worked. I have worked from the age of 12. There is nothing like earning your own money. I took real pride in my job and the basic lessons learnt (like turning up on time, finishing what you start and rewards for good service) cannot be taught as well at school – particularly when you don’t want to be there.
          I forced to go to school but nobody forced me to go to work. That was up to me.

        10. Actually, 100 years ago in the West most people worked in industry not agriculture. I think you have in mind the Pre-Industrial Period. Work related fatalities have always been relatively rare but they were relatively more common in the past than today. Actually women had a lot of children in these times because of high infant mortality. They worked while pregnant and nursing. Also, consider extended families who would help with child-rearing.
          Otherwise, I generally agree with you.

        11. “Actually women had a lot of children in these times because of high infant mortality.”
          Yes this is definitely true and certainly a very important factor. More babies is basically prudent risk management; having 6 babies is a smart idea given there’s a decent chance 1 or 2 might die before they reach 12 years of age from a freak farm accident/disease/etc.
          More reasons would be the lack of any real birth control/contraceptive, more help overall with running farm with more kids (free child labor) especially on very large farms, higher average male testosterone due to hard work on farms and just loneliness on a rural farm setting in general.
          My observation of rural settings is that couples tend to spend a lot more time with each and women put out more in general, since there’s nothing else to do.

        12. Birth control was not really an issue until the government began socializing the cost of children. Now that the government has taken on the responsibility of raising your children and removed their ability to become self-sufficient at an early age, in combination with rewarding teenage girls for being single-mothers, all of a sudden they need to convince you to practice birth control (so that they can manage the cost).
          I would not call having your children help out on the farm “free child labour”. Those people are living there and eating there. They ought to earn their keep.

    5. It’s not free-market capitalism when there are controls in place.
      Who is responsible for this control anyway? You?

        1. Best way to eliminate that problem is to eliminate government that is not based on voluntary exchange (i.e. taxes are voluntary and the government has no monopoly on force).

    6. Feminism is basically a by-product of luxury and it promotes female individualism and selfishness, conveniently disguised as “equality” at society’s expense. It is a false ideology propagated by upper-middle class white women for their own benefit.

      Exactly. Feminism can only thrive in a privileged society. For example, prior to the October Revolution, most Russian feminists were upper class aristocrats and naturally gravitated towards the Tsarist regime; Unfortunately, they had backed the wrong horse.
      After the revolution, Russia didn’t have the class of privileged middle class women that currently drives feminism in the west. Hence, many Russian women knew that real life as a working woman was a lot different from the feminist fantasies portrayed by the comfortable, privileged ivory tower academics who were the well-springs of feminist doctrine in Europe and America.
      To this very day, many Russian women equate feminism with Marxism and want nothing to do with it. Russian feminists try to distance themselves from Marxism but as much feminist theory is basically Marxism under a different flag, nobody is buying it.
      Both FEMEN and Pussy Riot have in recent years increased the distaste of Russians for feminists. Peeing on war memorials and desecrating churches is not the way to win hearts and minds in Russia. Most Russians are not religious but they do value their heritage and their fallen soldiers, which also includes war cemeteries and old churches.

      1. I am an evangelist for expatting. I live in Mexico. From time to time on the manosphere someone will whine there is no escaping feminism, that even Mexico has feminist laws.
        While that is true, they do have some so-called feminist laws. However, they have little effect on women. Why?
        Because women need a husband if they are going to have children. The nation simply does not have money for a ghetto class of baby mommas to live on the dole. DIF might keep a female headed family alive, but that is about it.
        There is no husband substitute in Mexico in the form of a government check. Period.
        So, women do not learn to treat men as of no value.
        A friend, a mature woman, has explained this to me. They do have DV laws. And, she said sometimes when a man hits his wife, she will run to the cops and show her bruises. They dutifully go out and take him off to jail.
        About three days later, she sees the supply of food almost gone and realizes he isn’t working. She runs back to the cops and begs them to let him go. Then, knowing what his first order of business will be when they let him go, she runs home and hides under the bed. Not that it saves her from a good drubbing, which she absorbs so the kids can eat. Nor does she go to the cops again. Nor do her friends.
        Women here tell me most DV happens when the man is drinking and she shoots off her mouth at him. I have seen women when the man of the house was drinking, due to a neighbor whose dad had died and wanted company while getting drunk, and those women in that house had smiles FROZEN on their faces. It was actually kind of funny to see.

    7. The pill’s introduction has been so overly hyped. Why was there a surge in the number of bastard children as well as welfare recipients if the pill promised to end ‘unwanted’ pregnancies and unplanned parenthood?
      Of course, as the supply of breadwinning men dwindled, both lower class and upper class women went to “sperm banks” respectively. The state essentially functions as substitute husbands. But even so, millions of women continue to have unplanned pregnancies and children despite the pill supposedly making that problem history.
      The notion of women being oppressed by being forced to stay at home is mid-20th century feminist-marxist propaganda. Most women worked because they had to. Back then, before welfare become a popular tool for leftists to breed replacement electorates and for the crony capitalists to get taxpayer funding for cheap immigrant labor, working class people didn’t have the luxury to have a woman stay at home half the way watching soaps. Even before the 1950’s, housework was not a full time job. Really. Houses were smaller for one thing so less cleaning. Food was cooked by scratch but it was cooked in bulk. Before nursing homes, the grandparents helped with childcare and cooking and were a net asset. Most working and even middle class women had part or full time jobs most of their lives. Work that is now done by computers was done by women such as typing out letters, reading and responding to written mail, and sending out bills. Yes, my mother actually did this back in the late 60’s from home. She’d have a box of invoices and had to address customer data and make the envelopes.

      1. In 1850, house work was a full time job in rural America. Of course, by 1950, affluent city dwellers didn’t have much to do. Just buy it at the store and cook it. And, pop the clothes in the machine.
        Even my farm family, in the 1950’s, just washing clothes without the ironing work, was an entire day each week for a large farm family.

        1. Who the heck ironed clothes in the 1950’s for a farming family? Did the farmers go on job interviews? 🙂
          I just got back from my wife’s grandmother’s farm last year with a well and outhouse. Standard practice was to get buckets of water and boil them, dump in clothes, and then scrub them in that wooden thingy with soapy water. Then transfer them to clean water, then hang to dry. Then done. No ironing. I was just there! I agree for a large family that clothes can take a whole day, but as you know, the children had chores to help with that so the mother didn’t do all of them. The mother often did other things around the farm. Rural households are a whole different kettle of fish, of course, since differentiation between “home” and “farm” are blurred when the pig barn is in the backyard. Women also tended to manage much of the livestock as well (in Ukraine, the men have a hard emotional time killing the chickens. Poor grandma got stuck with that.)
          Anyhoo, where were we? Before quibbling I’d say that most urban and suburban wives were not full time housewives and had full or part-time jobs depending upon the state of the children being old enough for school, etc.
          Fair enough?

        2. Fair enough? Actually, no, not at all.
          I think you have a very limited view of a large farm family in the 50’s or earlier. Several of them will be going to school, and before permanent press, which 1950 was, the kids would want their clothes to look at least half way decent. Unironed pre-permanent press looked pretty wrinkled before ironing.
          And, of course, in those days the whole family probably went to church. Ditto on wanting ironed clothes.
          The ironing was in addition to most of a day spent getting the clothes washed, hung up, and dried.
          To iron pre-permanent press clothes, you often had to sprinkle them, depending on the fabric and style involved.
          Before REA came in and one could use electric irons, one had to put the removable irons on the kitchen range and switch them back and forth, to iron with a hot iron.
          Your view of 50’s and older life on the farm seems to be very limited. I do not think it is deliberate, just not aware of what things were like.
          And, yes, the kids had to help. That meant several people were involved in that full day plus ironing. the girls probably got stuck with an excess share of ironing, because the boys had livestock chores which was not considered acceptable for girls.
          Here in Mexico, for a long time we had to take our clothes down to the uncle’s spring. We washed them in an old lavadero made of soft, very heavy volcanic rock That one is believed to be pre-conquistador, based on the aztec God carved over the drain hole.
          We would scoop water up from the canal, pour it in ahd scrub by hand. Then we had to repeat to rinse out the soap
          Now, we have fixed things up and wash in a Whirlpool, and line dry them on the roof.

        3. I lived briefly on a farm (for a few months at a time) but I’ll concur that your experience and age certainly helps with your historical credibility. I do know quite a bit about clothes though so I’m having fun with the discussion (if you don’t mind me challenging the authority and opinion of an elder whose far more experienced than me on the matter.)
          I have a lot of non-permanent press clothes that wrinkle easily and I and my wife found ways to hang them so they don’t wrinkle. The key is pressure. She attaches weighted clothespins to the bottom of the clothes to stretch them on the clothesline. With a good wind and sunny day, the clothes look pretty good. Not perfect, mind you, but nice.
          Another factor about the idea of a full time housewife is that my wife and her mother are so darn efficient at their tasks. They move so quickly and can get dishes washed, vegetables cleaned, meats pressed, etc. in a matter of moments. This was on the farm. I got out of their way.
          As you observe, the kids were expected to pull their weight plus there were grandparents (they weren’t dumped into nursing homes) so I expect most working class women, especially in urban and suburban neighborhoods, did have time (and necessity) to work at least part-time to help contribute to the family finances.
          My own paternal grand-mother (great grandmother) helped to run the family business (a Polish grocery store). It didn’t make as much money as it should have (you know how margins are with such stores.) Nonetheless, it was a matter of pride for such women to be good home cooks and keep a clean home.
          It’s ironic, I think, that feminists portrayed housewifery as this prison where they set at home all day when in reality that was relatively recent and a luxury to boot. Sure, for many farms, I expect the housewife did have to stay at home all day and I respect your experiences/observations but from what I know of my family history, it appears different.
          I guess that’s not fair enough but I hope that works for now. Have a good weekend!

        4. With a family of 9, handing weighted clothes pins on each item would be very time expensive, not to mention the cost of all those “weighted” clothes pins.
          I do agree there is a big difference in efficiency of women doing house work. My wife is also 73 (I haven’t figured out how to increment my disquis name) and not real strong, and is definitely not very efficient. When she goes back to the states, I have been paying her best friend and her DIL to come and do some house cleaning just before she comes back. With two women working they do in less than 3 hours what takes her many days.
          I am reminded of my eldest daughter. She met her husband in Spain, and eventually he asked her to marry him. She told him, yes, if she never had to cook for him. She said when a woman cooks for a man, she is his slave. I am not making this up. The idiot married her anyway.
          I noticed with interest she did not at all mind that he was her slave. So it is with militant feminists.
          Later, he got booted out of the military because he didn’t get promoted for a certain length of time. He was a skilled aviation radar tech. She got promoted because she was a typist and had a vagina. So, when he had to leave, she also left.
          They ended up in a city noted for two things. It is believed to be the most Christian city in the country. And, it has more strip clubs per capita than any other city in the nation. Those two factoids are not coincidental.
          Eventually, she became a Christian and decided she wanted a baby. When she got pregnant, she started whining she wanted a baby.
          As the birth day came closer, she started whining she wanted to stay home with her baby.
          He told her, “Yes, I can support us if we have a budget plan.”
          As the day to quit her job and be a housewife came close, she realized, “Hey, I can’t expect him to get up in the morning and prepare two meals for me (us) before he goes to work and I just sit around all day.”
          He told her, “Well, I promised I would do the cooking so I will.”
          She insisted and somehow he survived her cooking.
          One day, it came over her. “Hey, those women historically weren’t oppressed slaves!!! They wanted to stay home with their babies, just as I do, and logically had to do the household chores including the cooking while the husbands were out working elsewhere, just as I am doing. Those (******) feminists lied to me!”
          Yeah, no kidding.

        5. Hehehe. Funny story.
          On another thread, I’ve brought up the issue of how Helicopter Moms are now essentially full time housewives and this is a LUXURY men provide. Your daughter got lucky but perhaps since she was a secretary, she could appreciate a breadwinner more readily than a professional career woman with a good income whose ambivalent towards men.
          Another funny story: I went on an internet date with a woman who was working as a manager or a Denny’s. She was a flake and stood me up for the first, and second date. I was amused and called her and said that if that was what she wanted, ok. We finally met and she liked me and after banging a few times, she discussed with me how she wanted to be a housewife. I didn’t mind this necessary but her attitude made me run for the hills. She said that it was a “sacrifice” for a woman to give up her career and be a housewife and that a “real man” would support her. Oh, and buy her a $10,000 diamond ring. In other words, I was expected to work my butt off for her goals and tell HER how she had sacrificed for me.
          I said **** off and walked off.
          She drunk dialed me a few days later and I hung up and unplugged my phone (back in the day when I had a normal phone). She left a voicemail she was going to kill my cat. I called her back and said that if she didn’t back off, I’d notify the police and that was that.
          Women have told me for years how “backward” I am and don’t put up with their guff and while sometimes they are disgusted, most of the time it’s admiration. They don’t want to sleep with a man they can browbeat but that doesn’t stop them from trying. When someone engages in behavior that is contrary to what they want, that is called mental illness.

    8. Oil? A fossil fuel? Says who? Over 30 years ago, Scientific American had a major article discussing this. In fact, there is strong evidence that oil comes from the wood work out.
      And, for sure natural gas does. Which is why natural gas technology is being worked on so much.
      Back in the 70’s we had a major crunch on oil. At that time, the dooms dayers insisted we must put a large tax on oil to discourage its use, or we are all going to die, etcetera.
      There was a book written which analyzed the issues. If you raise the price of oil like that, businesses start shutting down, and all research ceases. If we had not done that, we wouldn’t have cars getting 50 mpg around town, and we wouldn’t have the highly efficient technology we are using today.
      Ditto for the future.
      Of course, fracking was implemented because the price of oil was too high. If and when we do reach the peak oil state, a future event, that is how oil will eventually be replaced by newer technology. Straight business decisions a bit at a time. Not Algore lies and panics. No liberal take-over of the entire economy.

    9. Free Market Capitalism is totally functional where government does not interfere with the market…you cannot have intervention in Free Markets without manipulating those markets. Without the government, monopolies cannot exist without disruption from innovation.

      1. FMC being functional where government doesn’t interfere with the market is one half of the problem; the other half is Government being functional/ethical without manipulation from the market and other external forces which is overlooked by most people.
        That’s the reason why such ridiculous projects like the Bridge to Nowhere and huge sums of money being wasted on pet projects via lobbying occur. The Government is basically the richest customer any company could ever hope to work with.
        Monopolies often require collusion with government in order to exist, but not always. The Standard Oil Company, run by John Rockefeller was such an example that greatly colluded with government. Today, anti-trust laws basically don’t allow monopolies (a modern example would be a monopoly on computer software by Microsoft about 15 years ago) to exist anymore.
        A truly free market, but one that is still accountable, ethical and self-regulating, simply cannot exit without some form of government intervention. The markets can’t regulate themselves; just look at what happened during the economic crisis a few years ago. Countries with lax market regulation, such as USA bore the brunt of the crisis whereas countries with more stricter regulation, such as Canada, went through relatively unscathed.
        The problem mostly comes down to lack of ethics of those in government.

        1. Which is why the US Constitution has so limited the powers of the federal government. It’s SUPPOSED to be small, and limited to defense, treaties, enforcement of contracts…that’s it.

        2. You aren’t in the financial industry, if you were, you’d know that regulations are so much bullshit, and are simply the tools of those that control the industry. They DON’T protect investors, they DON’T prevent the business cycle, and they DON’T work to eliminate fraud and deceit. All they do is to empower the controllers of the industry with more control. On the one hand you seem in favor of Free Market Capitalism, and on the other hand you call for regulation.
          The Market Works, if the Invisible Hand is allowed to function.

        3. Actually, I do work in the financial industry. More specifically, I work in Risk Management at a large Multi-national firm, so don’t just assume you know who you’re talking to 😉
          Regulations are obviously lax now and I know first hand, but that’s not the way it was even just 50 years ago. Regulations actually were more strict back then (specifically the Glass-Steagall Act) and a lot of the bullshit going on right now (High frequency trading, sub-prime lending, etc.) wouldn’t pass and yet both governments and the markets were better off. Over time, the regulatory bodies have basically sold out to the markets, just like government itself, due to too much influence from the markets and no wall to separate the two.
          There’s always bullshit going on in the markets in some form or another, but the catastrophic mess we got into recently was really the fault of Alan Greenspan and his stupid idea that “the free markets could regulate themselves” and even he conceded so in 2008 that it was a huge mistake. The reason we got into this whole mess is exactly because regulations were removed starting from 1999 with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
          The idea that “free markets can regulate themselves” is a myth that ignores the human nature of greed and is not possible, unless you want a “free market” that’s also “free” of ethics. Such a “free market” eventually infiltrates government and the government basically becomes another one of it’s tentacles to make ever more profits.
          I don’t have a problem with the free market working itself as long as it doesn’t fuck around with government bodies. The moment the government is infiltrated by the “free market” is exactly when government basically starts working for IT, and not the citizens it represents, regulations eventually go down and it all eventually blows up like it did in the Financial Crisis in 2007.
          Assuming markets can just regulate themselves without any rules is as ridiculous as saying human beings can regulate themselves so there’s no need for law. Regulation of the free market should be simple as possible, but as complicated as necessary. Too much regulation will choke markets and is just as dangerous to the economy as no regulation.
          Government and markets (“Separation of Corporation and State”) must be kept separate (just like Research/Investment Banking divisions) so the two don’t influence each other and to avoid conflict of interest. This leads to both a stronger government and a stronger market. Both are better off that way, and ultimately, the American people are better off that way.

        4. I also work in the industry, I’ve been in for 30 years, and I’ve seen NOTHING which you can actually point to that has successfully “managed” the market through regulatory fiat. In fact, the reverse is true, since the advent of the central bank, there have been so many financial crises that the LOGICAL conclusion is that regulation just doesn’t work. A Free (financial) Market, without interference from government, will become functional, or a competitive structure will replace it. Frankly, I’m tired of large firms with expensive attorneys who couldn’t sell their way out of a paperbag, writing regulations that are used to pressure people like me into useless, expensive, and non-competitive compliance, just to PROTECT the large “risk managers” (which is an absolutely BULLSHIT term), who need government to “protect” them from competition. What you’re in favor of HAS NOT WORKED, and never will work.

  5. Peak conventional oil was reached in 2005. Right now we are probably at peak liquids, which is conventional oil + unconventional oil. Nuke power has never proven very profitable, anyway liquid fuels are vital for transportation, not electricity.

    1. Actually old oil wells are filling up again…. Imagine that.
      Peak oil is missing some of the pieces.
      This is a mighty big world with more things going that we are unaware of than things we are aware of. Big lofty statements are fueled by hot air and fear and seldom science.

      1. Actually, I got an oil well (s) in midland Texas. If you notice the pump next to the well rarely runs 24 hours. There is a sensor that starts the pump when there is enough oil. It’s a grindingly slow process.

        1. You are a very smart man. It is slow because the “weight” of the oil and its viscosity will determine how quickly it is it bubble up. And crude is not that fluid from some wells.
          Now you can drill and manually pump from great depths to hasten the process but why bother… Nature will do it on its own.

      2. Total reserves do not matter in the context of the global economy.
        What matters is rate of production, or, barrels per day.
        That’s all.
        For example if you or I had $1Billion dollars in a bank account but were only allowed to withdraw $100 per day, would we be considered rich? $700 per week? I don’t think so.
        That’s the problem with shale oil reserves in this country. We may have ‘total reserves’ greater than Saudi, but can we pull out of the ground at 20 Million barrels per day or so the that US uses every day?
        Tom Colbert is right.
        Abiotic oil may be true, but if it takes oil wells that were emptied in less than 100 years millions of years to refill, what difference does it make?

    2. And now they are pushing solar panels on rooftops of single homes. Do you really believe that those panels can even run a small refrigerator? I mean like those small ones in your dorm room in college?
      Some politican probably has financial interest in the companies that make them and is trying to push that on us.

      1. I’ve looked at my power bill, they give you a readout over the past year. I could purchase a solar array that would fully provide for my power needs except for the months of June, July and August (I live in the hot south, and air conditioning costs are extremely high in summer). It’s not an ideal solar location, but even here it is feasible and I know others who have done it.
        Yes, solar panels can quite easily power homes. Germany has wisely invested in this technology, despite having only a mediocre climate for sun, and it is now paying off. The main hurdle is that the average person stays in a house for 7-8 years and the lifespan of an expensive solar system is much longer than that. A reasonable way to encourage this would be to provide a government incentive or rebate for the installation of a solar system, that way more homeowners would install them, and when I go to sell my house, chances are higher than I am moving into another house where that owner has installed the panels. The lifetime savings of this are huge, not to mention the health, military, and environmental payoff of free energy.
        If you are ignorant as to how solar panels can power homes, do some research. I’m not an expert in this area but there is a lot of data out there. I’d start at the local library and work my way online.

        1. I can see solar over a large area like the Mojave desert here in California directing the rays to a single point generating large amounts of electricity. I’m talking about just on your rooftop.

        2. I live in one of the worst areas of the USA for solar power (I’ve seen charts on a map and outside the pacific northwest where it rains all the time, this is one of the lowest sun areas) and I know people who have installed rooftop solar on their homes for most of their power needs. I’m going to a tour of solar homes later this summer and will know more then, all I know now is it’s possible. Most of these guys are using either battery backup or the power grid at night, while producing excess energy during the day.
          It’s getting cheaper all the time. It’s really a no brainer as the payoff period shortens. The only drawback really is price, which is dropping all the time, and is one area where public incentives could help. Take some of the trillions we spent blowing up Iraq and use it to give Americans solar panels so we never have to buy Iraqi oil in the first place.

        3. There are these guys that go door to door to push these panels. I asked one of them how much KWh does each of these panel generate and they couldn’t tell me.
          Your AC and refrigerator consumes a lot of electricity. I highly doubt the panels on the roof would make that significant impact. That means when you step out of your house, you’d fry like a piece of KFC chicken. Law of thermodynamics states you can’t get more energy out than you put in.

        4. There are guys that go door to door selling vacuum cleaners. I’m sure those models are overpriced and underperform, and the dumb salesman can’t tell you how hard they suck. Like I said, you can power your entire usage for a month off solar panels pretty easily, if you have the money. I personally need about 300-500kwh a month, which would cost around $10-$15k. I spend about $100 / month on power so I figure it is worthwhile if I stay here 10-15 years. Look into it if you’re interested. The sun is the prime source of all forms of energy (plant, fossil fuel, nuclear, etc.). It can certainly power your home with the right technology.

        5. You’ve described a heliostat. They’re nice in theory but one constructed in the Mojave desert is frying birds that fly into the reflected and concentrated rays of sunlight. Plus a large amount of land was taken away to build the thing and there are endangered animals that live in the Mojave.
          Thorium nuclear power is the only way to go.

        6. My parents had solar panels installed and they are producing a power surplus that gets fed back into the grid meaning they even get paid (a little) by the electric company. This is in North-West Europe, hardly a desert climate.

        7. What the seem to be referring to is photovoltaic solar energy. In the Carter years the big push was for solar thermal installations on homes to space heat and heat water. I did a study on it and it was never going to be economical in an age of cheap oil. Once subsidies were removed it went the way of the dinosaur. Photovoltaic has many applications for locations remote to existing grids, and it is becoming more economical everyday. This is the result of huge political barriers to any expansion of the electrical grid pretty much anywhere. The saying used to by NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard, but it is now BANANA, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

        8. This is why Tesla has been putting a major push for home battery storage of electricity to make your home independent of the grid. What most people don’t understand is that batteries have a fixed life and usually involve a huge amount of maintenance.

        9. If you look at the total amount of solar energy impacting the earth it is insufficient to power our high energy civilization. What we are talking about with home solar power is messing around at the fringes. Solar will never power an industrial nation. Now if you want to put the collectors out in space and them microwave them down to earth then it is possible. Of course this microwave beam is also known as a death ray ala Die Another Day.

        10. I am not going to engage in another meaningless argument. But, I think you need to look again at that first sentence. We only use an insignificant portion of the sun’s energy hitting the planet.

      2. The solar panels don’t have to run the whole house. If they run part of the house during the day and feed power back to the grid they reduce the total amount of coal that has to be burnt. If every home reduces its power consumption by a quarter or a third with solar that is still a whole lot of coal saved.

        1. Ok. That does make sense if every home does it. Now let’s try to understand the motive why they are pushing this concept. Is it really to save the environment. Businesses are in business to make money, not save you money or save the environment. Politicians want your vote, not exactly what is best for society.
          Saving electricity is a side benefit, but not the primary intent.

        2. Electricity generation is the primary source of the carbon that is causing global warming. The intent is to save electricity to reduce carbon emissions to protect the environment.
          We aren’t really including the costs of all the carbon that is getting pumped into the atmosphere in our energy bills. Oil companies still collect massive tax subsidies in this country and there’s that whole navy to protect the ships and army in the field to protect the oil wells.
          We’re not paying at the pump or in our electricity bills what all of these fossil fuels really cost.

        3. Boy, you fell for that global warming/carbon myth hook, line, and sinker. Politicians instill this fear into your minds so they get laws passed to control your lives. To steer you into buying the environmentally friendly shit that THEY or their buddies make money off of.
          Think about it. Al Gore the global warming pusher in late 2008 is telling us to conserve energy because of global warming. “The Earth has a fever.”, if you recalled. He lives in a mansion in TN that burns a lot of energy to heat. What’s his rationale for living a life of excess while YOU must live conservatively? He just buys carbon credits to compensate for his polluting ass. Not all of us commoners have that luxury. Do you really think he cares about the environment?

        4. If you do not accept climate science, then yes, I understand any point you might care to make about how solar isn’t that great a deal. Thanks for the replies.

        5. I’m not talking negatively about solar energy, it can help. Don’t get me wrong. It’s this push to have us buy it in each individual home.
          If this is that great, why hasn’t the government put more solar panels out in the desert in the Western states? It’s sunny all the time and there is this vast open land not being utilized.

        6. I think it is more political. I havent formulated the thought properly though Im sure others have. America is running out of oil, countries are fighting over it. Global warming is a way of scaring you into using less oil so they can have reserves, or with solar panels on every roof, they could divert military and oil engineering funds into more electrically efficient products.
          Then the country is self sufficient, which can only be a good thing for the economy.

      1. Well I’m one of those goofy guys who wears suspenders instead of a belt, because I like to carry a pistol in my pocket, don’t tell anybody…. However on an individual level, living beneath one’s means is always good advice, especially for a website devoted to traditionalism.

    3. And nuke energy has a HUGE upfront cost, beginning to end, it takes more than a decade to get a plant up and running. Last one to come online in the US wasin the late 70s…that was the beauty of oil in the good ol days, that new well would pay for its upfront costs in a matter of months…

      1. The last nuclear plant to come on line came in the early 90s not the late 70s. I know because I worked on it. I also worked at several in the 80s that came on line. Nuclear power is not uneconomical because of the technology but because of the political opposition; which will fade away when it becomes necessary. The cost of production of a kilowatt hour by nuclear power in the US is only slightly higher than for coal/natural gas and much cheaper than anything other than coal/natural gas. All that said, the nuclear power plants of the future will not be produced in the US, as we have willfully destroyed our capabilities in that area. All nuclear components and design will be from off shore.

    4. All energy is fungible. Most technologies that could replace oil and coal are not profitable, for the moment, because ol and coal are cheap. It would not take much to tip the scales the other way. As oil and coal start to be harder, more expensive, to extract then the other means of producing energy will become more attractive and cost effective.

  6. In the actual world…there is no supch a thing as a non productive adult. Women breastfeed while hoeing the field…..

    1. “In the actual world…there is no supch a thing as a non productive adult.”
      That is true because back in the day both men and women had genuine purpose in life. Good men had respect from their wives, and from society. Men had a reason to get out of bed each morning. There was no reason to be lazy; in fact most men could not sit stagnant for very long. Today it’s just the opposite and honest men should simply stay home if they can manage to do so.

  7. I’ve always said that the best hope for America’s future is to be Brazil North.
    The worst possibility is for America to be Yugoslavia West.
    I’m not sure which one looks more likely…

    1. Yugoslavia west, but hopefully more like Czechoslovakia west. The cultural and political differences between the coasts/rust belt on one hand, and the south, TX and mid/mountain west are too vast to bridge.

      1. I was mainly using “Yugoslavia West” to refer to the brutal ethnic cleansing (or rather, racial cleansing, seeing as America puts more stock in broad racial categories than ethnic subcategories) that appears to be increasingly more likely for America’s future every day..
        Of course, it would be nice if the establishment didn’t promote racial resentment and conflict, but that’s likely not going to stop anytime soon.

    2. Brazil North minus the sensual, healthy and feminine women. Hooray! Sounds great. Keep the passports renewed boys.

  8. I too believe that nuclear is the way to go for energy. The evolution of new reactor designs is an order of magnitude more convenient and safe than our current stock of reactors designed 50 years ago when the technology was in infancy.
    But the broader problem – can we go to a more humane system of more simplified systems where human relationships are more back in tune with our evolutionary history? Here, I have to come back to Joseph Tainter from Univ of Utah. This guy managed to put his finger on the issue back in the 1988 book “Collapse of Complex Societies”. This is a must read for those interested in the big picture.
    The basic mechanism (that will likely never change) is that a society of humans starts out humming along by accident favoured by natural conditions. As any society prospers the inevitable bad times come and changes have to be invented for survival. If the weather changes, other tribes threaten invasion, over-population outgrows food supply etc. etc. There’s always something. Successful societies are good at hoovering up energy and materials for the good of the members. And to deal with ongoing challenges over time, the “complexity” of the society inevitably increases. New technologies are invented or developed. New more sophisticated social hierarchies evolve to handle complexity.
    At some point, the low hanging fruit is picked. Solutions to challenges demand more and more complexity and energy and information flow. The article referred to “office fauna”. This is the result of having to handle the nearly mind boggling complexity that we endure to make our modern society run. Computers and recruitment of females had to be done to deal with all the new laws etc. This is one reason for the rise of feminism.
    Anyway, Tainter is pessimistic about a way out. He is now a consultant on oil, peak oil and the general hoovering up of energy to feed this monster. His observation of the collapse of many ancient societies (including a great take on the Roman Empire) points to collapse. And when he says “collapse” he means a rapid de-complexification of the society. Things fall apart, the old hierarchies are wiped out and everyone is lost for a while.

  9. Peak oil is a farce. Not all scientists believe in the bionic theory of oil. The Rusians theorized oil was abiotic in nature and have been going by that theory quite successfully for 70 years. Have you ever noticed the Saudis have been claiming 260 billion barrels of reserves for 50 years? How can that be when they have been pumping 9 million barrels a day? As far as US oil production decline we were on our way to becoming the number one producer again. You can see were that went. OPEC shut down our drilling and exploration by slashing prices. I am convinced that Tesla solved the puzzle of harnessing wave energy 80 years ago.
    Oil equals control. Being able to create scarcity of a needed source of energy comes in handy for world control. If we all had zero point energy generators and nano technology machine assemblers we would be free. One thing that has to be understood is that you are a slave and they are not going to take off your shackles without a fight.
    I do agree with the office fauna jobs. Corporate America and the women of both sexes need something to do…..even if it is nothing. It is a female dominated monstrosity, devoid of any honor or decency. The corporate American office space is a giant feminist tampon. The men who work in it are sniveling girly men and back stabbing physical cowards that lack brains, talent or know how. I can tell you what should be done with these reptiles but we of course don’t advocate or condone any violence.

    1. It’s a theory. It’s not necessarily proven as true or disproven. However, the fact that a barrel of oil cost $20 in 2000 and is now about FIVE TIMES that much seems to indicate something is causing the price of oil to skyrocket. Peak oil theory says that something is the availability or supply of oil deposits. There have been no major oil well discoveries in the last 50 years, and many of the large oil fields have declining production. Oil drilling has moved to expensive and dangerous areas like off-shore, where you are more likely to have accidents like BP had in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago with Deepwater Horizon.
      US Oil production peaked in the 1970s and has not recovered from that level. Peak oil theory provides an explanation for why that happened. I’m open to hearing other explanations as well.

      1. Maybe the value of the US dollar has declined against other foreign currencies added to the sharp rise. Also more demand from other countries like China.
        Oil is priced in US$ in the world market.

        1. Hmm, after reviewing the historical price of oil in gold, a nonfiat currency, I think there is some truth here. An ounce of gold will buy between 10 to 30 barrels of oil almost any time over the past 60 years, far more stable than looking at the price in USD.
          However, there is still the fact that the easy cheap oil fields are gone, and now we are down to Tar Sands and Offshore and drilling at our national parks.
          Also, while the USD price of oil went up 5 fold from 2000 to today, the gold price of oil is still up about 3x from 2000 to today.

        2. “Wait until OPEC decides to no longer sell oil in USD”
          That’s never going to happen. The entire middle east would simply be bombed back to the stone age and the oil fields would be seized; and and the leaders in the ME know this.

        3. There is no OPEC anymore, only Saudi Arabia. They are the only country that matters anymore.

        1. Theory comes before testable hypothesis. Then you can only use hypothesis testing to disprove the theory. Nothing is science is ever proven; it is only not disproven so far.

      2. Amazing how people cant wrap their heads around this- oil is finite, just like every other resource.

      3. Oil at present is around $45/bbl. The $100 was artificial and caused by speculators forcing the price up. But their scheme has failed; the bubble has burst. And oil exploration has moved into deep water because of idiot, unpatriotic state governors who don’t want drilling offshore, or ecohippies who don’t want drilling in the ANWR wasteland.

        1. Thanks for mentioning that. Commodity prices are higher due to speculation in the markets.

        2. All commodities have been crushed lately. Do you follow the markets? I think it all has to do with lack of demand due to the slowing down of the global economies. It has nothing to do with speculation… It’s funny how speculators are only blamed when the prices go up, no word about them when prices go down.

        3. I don’t follow at all, but I have a friend or two who do investments. I think you are right about demand. I think most of the past demand was being driven by the fed primping the pump, but thats all coming to an end.

        4. Watch the Australian and Canadian dollars (commodities based economies)… Especially the australian dollar as it’s also tied to how China is doing. And China is doing as well as demand from U.S. is doing…

        5. Thanks for passing on the insight. I have always been interested in investment brokerage.

        6. You’re missing the point… offshore oil drilling wasn’t necessary at all at first, when there were abundant quantities available in vast oil fields like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, but now we are resorting to things like offshore drilling, and drilling in our parks and national wildlife reserves. I am a huge fan of America’s national park system, and don’t consider a single one of our national wildlife reserves, preserves, or parks, a “wasteland”. I’m currently reading The National Parks: America’s Best Idea, by Ken Burns and others.
          What would America have to show if it had extracted timber, oil and bison parts out of all its national parks? A little bit more cheaper resources. What legacy do we have by preserving these national parks? Which honestly can you say you prefer? Get outside and enjoy the natural world that was created for you!

  10. The United States only produces 3 things: software, weapons and money. I don’t believe technology is going anywhere any time soon. If that’s the case, we’re back to the stone age (literally) as everything around us is run by software.. So what I think it’ll happen is we’ll have a class of highly paid professionals that would keep the join running, and then the rest.. And part of the rest will actually be paid to stay home and do nothing (as their skills will become useless)… Paid enough to not riot that is… Pretty bleak but that’s what I think…

      1. Yes, movies are a vital part of any industrial economy. I love watching some new chick with a dick flick.

        1. I made the mistake of watching sense 8 on Netflix. Oh my fucking God…. lesbos, gays, feminism.. fucking had nothing to do with what I thought the movie was going to be about… Being aware now of the SJWs and all the bs in our society, I actually realized what they do to people’s heads. Unreal.. And I damn watched the whole season.. after the first episode it became a case study for sure..
          Very disappointed because the Matrix guys were involved.. what a fuck up..

        2. shouldn’t come as a surprise.. the Matrix “guys” (one of them is a tranny now) are huge feminists and SJWs. Their only good work was the Matrix and the lesbian-exploitation flick Bound.

        3. “shouldn’t come as a surprise.. the Matrix “guys” (one of them is a tranny now) are huge feminists and SJWs”
          I hear you, but still find it interesting that they directed such an amazing film Matrix, which is the analogy used by today’s manosphere.

        4. First one was ok….. the rest??? So contrived, where do we go now? Oh I dunno, throw in Monica Belucci and see where we go from there…..
          And I heard about that series, sounded like an SJW’s wet dream.

      2. Movies-One of the few things the US exports that hasn’t eroded yet due to competition (although I have to say, the quality here is slipping also)

        1. You honestly think the movies of 2015 are as good as the movies of decades past? You think M Night Shamylan and Michael Bay can hold a candle to Stanley Kubrick? Are there examples to backup your feelings ?

        2. No, you mistake my amusment. I don’t think American movies, or at least 90% of them could slip in quality because they could not be any worse.Kubrick gave us one of my favorite movies of all time, Dr. Stranglove.

        3. Yeah, I’m so glad for torrenting, because about 75% of the movies *I think I want to see based on the plot and them receiving good reviews* are still crap. I really enjoyed Ex Machina though…
          I also saw some horror movie recently that got good reviews.. It Begins was the name I think. It had no plot whatsoever, except that there is some thing that chases after you until you have sex with someone else. Watching this, it’s hard not to say there is some agenda for destroying the social fabric of society coming out of Hollywood. Hah, well, at least it will keep the teens fornicating.

        4. The only director who still makes movies I want to see is Martin Scorsese. He is a storyteller. I loved Hugo recently, although I did not care for The Wolf of Wall Street. Gangs of New York, Goodfellas, The Departed all great stuff.

        5. Why didn’t you enjoy Wolf? I thought it was good, but long. A true story of a man with a huge ego and small moral compass. I like a few directors, and I’ve discovered that’s the #1 thing to look for when finding a good film: Who directed it?
          Alfonso Cuaron, Tim Burton, Woody Allen, Oliver Stone, Werner Herzog I like (OK so half are not Hollywood haha). Spike Lee films are usually great too.
          Wanna see a great non-Hollywood black comedy? Check out Wild Tales.

        6. Went to new Mission Impossible movie last night. After Cruise in Edge of Tomorrow I forgave him for all the other mediocre shite he’s done, enjoyed that movie. The new Mission Impossible? Utter tripe, I keep getting fooled by these critics.
          I’m going to go for a walk in future instead of gong to the movies. Kubrick was the shit….watched Barry Lyndon the other night… romping tale…..

        7. Cone on “Wolf”? Where else are you going to see a guy snorting coke out of a hookers asshole???? Or Leonardo with a candle where the sun doesn’t shine???

        8. Just not my cup of tea. I’m not enthralled with a story about some Wall Street degenerate. I also thought DiCaprio’s performance was over the top. I liked him in the Aviator, Gangs of NY and The Departed.

        9. Barry Lyndon is amazing. I have been thinking a lot lately about how tragic it is that Kubrick’s plan to film a masterpiece on Napoleon Bonaparte never happened. He finished the script, did countless hours of research, and had the locations scouted. It would have been incredible (a lot of that research was transferred to Barry Lyndon shooting). Sadly, I don’t even know if I’d want to see it done by any living director today. No one could do it justice, and the scope of the battles would be ruined by CGI.

        10. I didn’t know about the Napoleon movie. That would have been something. I was listening to a radio show in Ireland about the filming of Barry Lyndon. Very interesting. The IRA threatened to bomb the set and Kubrick had to take his family out on the next ferry back to England.
          Go here to listen to said show, under 40th Anniversary Barry Lyndon:

          Apparently the script is out there on the net, I have not read it. Much of the research on filming with natural light, sets, setting, costumes, etc. was used on Barry Lyndon when he couldn’t get approval to start filming Napoleon.
          He was ready to start filming tomorrow. He wanted to shoot the battles on the actual battlefields, but when some of them had changed or been developed, he instead had people collect soil samples from each so that when he recreated the battlefields they would be perfect down to the color of the dirt. A true obsessive madman for film, and this would have been an utter work of art. I guess if Spielberg makes an adaptation I will watch it, but it will pale in comparison to what it could have been.
          I couldn’t get the clip to play. It says something about my adblocking software, which I run on my router.. Maybe I’ll check it out at the coffee shop.

      1. only 4% of the population involved.. and that’s possible due to the tech industry…
        It all goes back to software/robots/bio tech.etc.

  11. The archdruid is right on many things but to a point that requires deeper consideration.
    I will just focus on the question of oil and industrial jobs. The peak oil is indeed here but what do we mean by the word “peak oil”? If we define oil as the whole then we are far from running out. But if we mean oil cheaply obtained like some low-hanging fruit, then that day already came. It will cost more to get more oil in harder to reach areas like fracking which provide the liquid pressure needed to drain the oil or other technology.
    But the real question was never about the supply, it was always a question of accurate market price. A free market is an informational system in which millions of men make educated guess at to the marginal value of any given good or service and reached agreement that may or may not success. The price is the data package that carry imperfect information about the ratio of supply and demand. However imperfect, it is more timely than any government wishful thinking report. If the price rise (due to either rising demand and/or tightening supply), then the customer will rethink his usage and seek alternative. If the price fall, the customer is encouraged to consume more. As in the case of water (another governmental controlled good), low price of oil encourage overdependence. Higher prices will create a mess but such mess is always short-term because man is amazingly adaptable even if not too bright at times.
    And that’s the marvel of the modern man, most people are not very smart but they don’t need to be. They just need to make adjustments like a sailor in his sailboat and watch the smarter leaders and copy their behavior and they get better. Leaders will disappoint them most of time, but there will always be some winners who will build followers in time. 2,000 years before the first states in prehistorical Iraq, there was already an extensive trade, pottery, math, writing and other trappings of civilization, creating wealth and knowledge ripe for picking by the invading nomad tribes of horsemen from the north who founded the first states.
    Anyhow, back to energy. The best alternative with a stable baseload would be a molten thorium nuclear power battery. We already know how to create them and thorium is cheaper and much much smaller. Safer too because it’s already molten. The only real question was creating a suitable containment wall and capital. Capital is hard to come by because the US want the bomb and thorim cannot create bomb material like either heavy-water or light-water fission reactor. Only other real power supply is geothermal power which is also nuclear-based, depending on heat produced by radioactive decay at the earth’s core. Co-op neighborhood plants seems the best way to enable affordable mass adoption with a few houses arranged around a common park in the center of a circle so that all owners gain the advantage of power and heating while sharing the cost and risks.
    Ok, the industrial jobs. there had been a lot of bitching about it, so much that the truth got lost in the heat. First of all the well-paying factory jobs in the 1950’s were not the result of protectionism or unions. They were a direct result of a very unusual time. In the 1950s, the US was the ONLY major industrial nation with an intact system. All other industrial systems were ruined by the war with various talent scatted or dead from bullet, bomb or disease. The Soviets also did the Americans a huge favor by cutting half of the global population from the global labor market behind the wall. The third reason is what ROK readers should know: a strong family unit in which the wives were willing and eager to stay home and raise children, reducing the labor force even more. The 1950-1980 anti-colonialist wars in Africa and Asia and South America also delay the recovery of these areas. As the world recover, first in Japan and Germany, and then the rest, a demand grew for the American talent and hardware to be exported to these places. It was only natural that they will begin to compete with us. It really kicked in after the Berlin Wall fell. By 1990, we should have been expecting these changes and be ready, but we were fat and happy and growing entitled. We were not prepared for the shock of the new. Loss of jobs would not be so bad is the price of the goods have fallen along with the median middle-class wages but the Federal Reserve Bank’s silly low interest rates and excessive laws and regulations and income tax in favor of large corporations and banks limited our ability to respond to the changes with creative solutions.
    I doubt we will have another dark age. It will take a major plague or nuclear war. Unlike the last dark age, we have millions, billions of books and papers all over the world, making recovery much faster. The real question will be this. Decentralization of Europe enabled Europe to become richer and freer than Rome would dare to imagine due to Europe’s easy right of exit that (thanks to the states’ small sizes) encourages a strong tax competition between the kings. Same story in China’s Warring States period and the classical Greece’s thousand states. Will we copy this proved path or will we fall to a world state instead?

    1. Actually, when the system goes down all those books are burned by women to keep the babies warm.

      1. Are you sure they won’t storm the stores for armful of the pill and burn books to power their iPhones for Buzzkill’s “Ten Ways Oprah Do To Make The New Dark Age Chic”?

  12. enjoy the decline unless our leadership class grows a brain.
    I disagree with some of these conclusions. One of the items missing here is our communication with each other and how we get our news (instantaneously).

  13. Don’t worry about peak oil…we’re basically floating on natgas, which is basically just as good, and by the time we have depleted everything we will have figured out renewables, b/c depletion is going to take a long goddam time.
    Bottom line: we’re going to have energy until well past the time all of us are dead.
    Source: I work in energy trading. Calm the fuck down.

    1. true, Lightning is free energy figured out by tesla in the 1800’s
      Putting a copper tether in the sky and getting lightning
      the earth spins at 65,000 miles an hour and has a huge electromagnetic field just like an electric motor
      we are full of free energy + solar the whole things a sham
      using gravity, Which is free energy everywhere we will have abundance in the future? HOW?
      Well drop a 100 lb weight, you will SEE the energy nice and clear or try to do some jumping jacks, You’re gonna feel it, its all around you and its powerful (gravity) and covers literally every single inch of the earths gianormous surface.
      Gravity energy generator, using bouncing and perpetual motion advanced physics by 2030 guaranteed and suppressed/
      Lol just speculating, but im sure thsi is how the UFO”S figured it out
      I had an idea for free energy, Say everyone drops a bowling ball off a 1 mile high tower with a string on it turning a turbine?
      Here is how you do it,
      Materials needed:
      Bowling ball, String, trampoline, Some kinda tower, some wind perhaps, ugh an unstable cliff with a westernly wind with a “sail that deploys around a certain time when it is windy so that the tower inverts, flips and the weight falls back into position A in which it is re-winded.
      So you drop the bowling ball on a trampoline from a tower with a string tied to a turbine, classic
      Than you create an “inversion” system, Essentially, You flip the platform upside down using a windy location to get that bowling ball back in position A so that it can “reset” itself for free, and cause the sail to deploy to catch that wind so that it flips, the second stage of the design is rather complicated since the entire machine can end up stuck upside down and not “reverting” So there is a loop system to take care of this
      Very simple^ someone will eventually figure out how to trap gravity and this will be game-over for our energy problems

      1. I saw a documentary or something like that where they came up with an idea installing turbines in the ocean along the shore. The ebb and flow of the waves along the beach would turn the turbine to generate electricity. You would not need to worry about if it rains or if there is a constant breeze for wind energy.

        1. They have already super-engineered yeast to make biofuel in 300 times greater amounts.
          All that is needed are drones which are programmed to perform menial farming tasks and monitor everything automatically, than what you have is a biological machine that makes anything
          Synthetic biology, literally the formula of all DNA and all LIFE will be known and how to super-engineer it
          Humans will live for 5000 years
          Does anyone give a shit about the 1980’s? No, not at all.
          Will anyone give a shit about 2015 when this is all true in 2030?

        2. I remember hearing a story on the radio about tidal power being installed somewhere near Scotland. No doubt elsewhere as well.
          The problem with wind is that it generally blows at night, whereas electricity load is generally much higher during the day, and it also is most reliable in inconvenient locations.
          At any rate, we have plenty of time to fine tune renewables while we deplete oil and work on coal conversion….oh, and we’ve got a shit ton of natural gas. There are always going to be plenty of Chicken Littles, though.

        3. Agreed, it is a combination of all sources and where they are most suited. Look up Seville, a large percentage of its power is now from solar produced from two towers outside the city. Passed by them a few times, pretty cool seeing the rays hitting the towers. Then there is biomass, suited to areas with mature forestry industries. Oil is still the winner for now as it is the most concentrated form of energy and is easily transported.
          Even if we have hit peak oil the bitches are still going to feel entitled. So hit it boys, hard…..

      1. Cars can and do, but not in great numbers b/c the infrastructure is designed for gasoline burning vehicles.
        And Airbus and Boeing (and others) are working on alternative fuel for planes, discussed more generally here:
        Additionally, w/r/t unconventional oil, ignoring for the moment, environmental concerns with the existing process of coal liquefaction (e.g. coal to oil), existing US coal reserves, amount to, oh….TWELVE Saudi Arabias.
        The Takeaway:
        1. Do not confuse “peak oil” (if we are even at it yet) with “depletion”.
        2. Do not assume static technology.

        1. Thanks for the insightful post. Do you think that the unconventional oil and alternatives will be as cheap as conventional oil? Greer doesn’t say that there are not alternatives, only that they are not (and will not be) cost effective.

        2. no, no it wont. Global transportation runs on oil. Its great we have alternative potentially for electricity, but none for oil.
          You guys need to go over to theoildrum and ourfiniteworld.
          There is no substitution for oil- it is the most energy dense, stable and portable energy source the world has ever known.

        3. I think people are inclined towards a “Doomsday” scenario. Technology is not static. Years ago, people didn’t understand that previously unrecoverable oil would be made recoverable by fracking.
          Formerly, everyone was a Malthusian and predictions were that billions would die of starvation. Then Norman Borlaug came along with the Green Revolution. Although people starve today, that is not a matter of production but distribution.
          We went to the moon using computers that are less powerful than an iPhone. Think about that for a minute.
          The bottom line is that we will find new extraction methods/technology. Depletion has been put off by fracking, etc., so by the time we’re out of oil (and we’ll all be dead by the time that happens), new tech will have made other energy supplies cost effective.
          It’s more fashionable for people to panic and predict doom so they can pretend they know something, but the future is brighter than ever.
          Keep Calm and Chill Out.

        4. A few renewables are already at or near cost parity with fossil fuels locally, e.g., photovoltaic panels in Germany and large-scale wind in Denmark and West Texas. What I’ve heard is that the most cost-effective renewables are still fairly localized but that the economies of scale are expanding quite rapidly into new regions. The scale and overall cost-effectiveness of renewable energy today was beyond the event horizons of the 1980’s and probably most of the 90’s.
          As these technologies (wind in particular, it seems) have become more widespread and proven their usefulness, they’ve become less and less politically controversial. They still rile up NIMBY’s (see the offshore wind project under discussion near Cape Cod), and they alarm aboveboard environmentalists with their capacity for genuine damage, too, but they no longer attract the sort of overwrought, conspiratorial opposition from the right wing that they did two or three decades ago. That sort of anger and self-righteousness about these technologies as useless hobbyhorses promoted by self-dealers in the green lobby has become quite marginal with respect to wind power. The technology has simply proven itself too useful in solidly Republican parts of the Upper Midwest and the Mountain West for anyone in the mainstream of right-wing politics in these areas to speak ill of it in broad terms.
          My guess is that solar power is a decade or two behind wind in the US, technologically and politically. Solyndra was a mess in both senses, but twenty years from now it may look like an early R&D kink. Its technical problems seem to have been subsidiary to its serving as a party to public corruption in any event.

        5. Solar energy (renewables) simply cannot compare with fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are actually thousands or even millions of years worth of pre-packaged, concentrated solar energy in a convenient form. How can renewables compare with this?
          We might be able to sustain a modern civilization on renewables, but it would a very low growth society, with a stable population – just like human society over most of history actually.

        6. Remember that fossil fuels continue to benefit from huge government subsidies. Big oil gets something like 4 BILLION dollars in tax credits per year as well as avoids various taxes by keeping money out of the US. Not to mention the enormous cost of protecting shipping lanes and keeping an army in the field in oil producing countries.
          Most renewable energy systems would come down greatly in cost if they benefited from just half or a quarter of that 4 billion dollars.

        7. Solyndra didn’t cost a quarter of what any one of the big five oil companies collect in tax credits each year. That was merely propaganda from big fossil fuels to discredit renewable energy systems. If you look at renewable energy systems strictly from a competitor with fossil fuels standpoint it is quite easy to see an entrenched business trying to discredit the upstart.

        8. As I wrote, don’t assume static technology. I’m not anti-fossil fuel, but we should be working on developing non-fossil fuels to make them competitive, utlimately. I’m not a hair-on-fire liberal fucktard, but I do think having clean air and clean water for the sake of having clean air and clean water is a good thing.

    2. Typically I’d agree. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the assorted alphabet agencies cripples us at some crucial juncture in the next 30-40 years (let’s go all-in on climate change!). I suspect you know what a barrel of laughs the CFTC is…

  14. I used to think groups like the druids and Amish were whack jobs but the older I’ve gotten and have seen how corrupt our society is the more I understand them.

  15. I’m going to disagree with political gridlock, but NOT his conclusion of kleptocracy riddled with special interests, foreign and domestic.
    While the Repubs have been spineless and ineffective, progressives have delivered and/or sustained a multitude of features their constituents want: Obamacare, gay marriage, abortion (on-demand, late term, to minors without parental consent/notification, tax subsidized, etc), unchecked immigration, ever-increasing welfare rolls, and on and on.
    I’m thinking the “gridlock” is just gridlock theater for mass consumption.

    1. I would think the PUA/Game crowd would like abortion on demand. Gay “marriage”, however, is a disgrace that will probably engender the destruction of western civilization. It is an affront to God Himself. The collapse of the USSR shows what happens when you tick off the Big Guy. Agree also about unchecked immigration. The welfare rolls thing hasn’t been too bad since AFDC was changed to TANF back in the day (harder to stay on it for ever). As for “obamacare”, the ACA is just the Private Insurance Protection Act. When employer-based health care finally collapses, then we’ll go to the nirvana of single-payer.

  16. “He believes that we have reached peak oil production and that the price of energy will slowly begin to increase.”
    Yes, the price of energy will increase but not because of peak oil.
    Preeee-sen-teeeen….. the real reason for pushing the global warming canard down our throats.
    A new global currency.

    In ten years or less the poor will be taking food out of their kids mouths to pay their electric bills because their power company has to either invest in expensive CO2 sequestration OR buy carbon credits from other power companies that do.
    Essentially a tax on fucking air!
    “He suggests that the only reason that fracking was created was because the price of oil reached such a high price that fracking became cost effective.
    From Greer’s perspective, the current low price of oil—it is below $50 a barrel—is a result of OPEC flooding the market to put its fracking industry competitors out of business. This may be true as half of the 41 US fracking companies are expected to go out of business by the end of 2015.”
    And now after some fiddling OPEC has finally determined the new optimal price for their oil (i.e. the maximum price they can get away with charging that will still be low enough to render fracking economically inviable).
    That is why the price has now stabilized at a new high (higher than the lowest it was last year but not as high as it had been before that).

  17. “dystopian-vision-of-our-near-future”
    There has never been a time in history where people were not doubtful about the future…
    Why is this you ask?
    We are fragile!
    1-3 Minutes without oxygen we croak/pass out. 3 minutes!!!!!!
    1-2 days without water we croak
    about 2 weeks to 1 month without food we croak, and survival becomes increasingly more difficult each day we dont eat
    11 days without sleep we croak, although 11 days is thought to be a record, with each sleepless day thought to increase risk of mortality by 30% or so
    after 24 hours without sleep our ability to survive only gets worse and worse,after 3 days we go crazy and hallucinate^
    Therefore our brains reflect this interpretation of reality as “dangerous” We MUST be cowards to survive. We are all cowards.
    What is money? Assurance and ease of our cowardly future threats of resources,
    Here is something to think about for now, or perhaps for the next 2 years or so…
    To really be creative and genius, what is the price, probability,?
    The probability right now is 1 in 2000-4000 of becoming a learned specialist and 1 in 8000 of being a contributing specialist in any field of engineering, medicine,science ETC. It’s depressing to know those nice buildings and innovations you see well, it was probably just a few brilliant men who are responsible and the masses of humans are marginally retarded,
    Is anyone saying anything new that wasn’t written in a psych book 100-500 years ago? Or perhaps, are Aristotle’s writings 2000 years ago more clever than 90% of the material around today?
    What will happen when “intelligent machines” which are just a software problem exist?
    Suddenly, There won’t be 1 in 8000 Genius’s who are on average male, and under 40
    Suddenly… Given there are 9 billion humans by 2050, and each will have at least 3-30 AI systems and these ai systems will gradually increase in sophistication..
    We paint a picture of the future in which “intelligence” Becomes an engine. An engine’s power is only controlled by the amount of fuel, now, these intelligence engines are very low power, which means that
    the technological “genius” we will see starting 15 years from now is going to be 20,000 TIMES more powerful than the 30 years it takes to educate a biological genius
    20,000 times more powerful? Yeah.. this is actually incredibly conservative seeing as how software deflates in price by 50% a year right now and doubles in quality, and ai is just a software problem, So a year after strong AI exists, the potential genius will organize better and be better so we can say it will be 40,000 times more powerful than 80,000 times more powerful.
    before 2045.
    What does it mean for You specifically reading this with your little 100 IQ fluoride pickled brain? 15 years from now?
    You doubt me with my 20,000X speculation even though i have only put 1 and 1 and gotten 2, its very clear to see what a future of intelligent machines will do, seeing as how humans are clever at peak maybe 1 hour a day, after a good coffee and the machines work 1000 times faster and 24/7 reliably, How many billions of calculations per second does a modern CPU under 500$ do? oo yeah were gonn a have some real powerful AI real soon fellas
    Well, it means we will be creating “god like” worlds in which we command an entire universe in detail, it will mean the abandonment of post 2035 Reality
    It will mean “DNA” which is just information and proteins which makes you up, Will be software.
    I guarantee everyone will want to take the most beautiful “DNA” upgrades
    Everything we know is about to change.

  18. Peak oil is bogus, but a favorite tactic of liberals.
    we’re down to 43$ a barrel because the world economy has slowed to a crawl, and soon Iran will be pumping it’s own onto the world market. there is plenty of oil.
    Prices and markets of buyers and sellers is the most efficient allocation of resources.

  19. I’m a real historian and I tell you:
    The stone age didn’t end because they ran out of stones.
    The oil age won’t end for a lack of oil. A new energy source will follow. The Japanese are working on extracting oil from algae, for example.

    1. Everyone is working on oil from algae. It is called biomass and extraction can be done from almost any crop. The problem is making it cheap enough to compete with oil. Brazil had huge supplies of sugar cane and achieved oil independence by replacing it with ethanol. The US has tried this with corn and it isn’t working because the cost of corn and the cost of converting it to ethanol is too high. The price of algae is pretty low but it still cost lot to convert. Some bio mass can be used to replace diesel already. That may be the answer to the transportation liquid fuel needs. Of course it has it’s own environmental issues.

  20. Best to generate your own energy either way, but there’s no way civilization will decline back into the Victorian age as new energy technology is fast catching up wealthy people will always be able to afford alternative energy so it might be that only wealthy people will have free and cheap access to energy, and now that cars like Tesla are fast getting cheaper soon gasoline will become a thing of the past, I know I would love to own a tesla if they were not so expensive.

  21. The sad part is that today it’s the freaks who make sense.
    Take this presidential election. Only Donald Trump the Unserious Blowhard and Bernie “national socialism” Sanders are saying that we need to clamp down on immigration. Everyone else was all “diversity” and “amnesty” until they spoke up.
    This is like when Alex Jones gets something right. Suddenly, you have to question how insane the supposedly “sane” people are who are poo-pooing him.
    We live in very sad times.

    1. ‘Unserious blowhard billionaire’ just doesn’t work for me. I think you (and a lot of people) are underestimating Donald’s intelligence.

      1. Yeah… Out of all those muppets, Trump is the only one that has something to show for. He built an empire couple of times over.Once after he’s been cleaned up by Ivanka and the feminist divorce courts.

        1. I’m a fan of both Trump (because he says the unsayable about most things) and Sanders because he says the unsayable about capitalism (it’s dying) and immigration (need to put hold on it; it’s anti-worker). But having built a multi-billion dollar empire is not by itself a qualification for President. Would we want a President Soros or a President Zuckerberg or President Gates? No, I think not.

      2. I don’t underestimate his intelligence; I can see from here he’s miles ahead, IQ wise, of most people.
        But he is unserious; his presidential runs have been regular since the late 1990s, and are never policy-driven, only for good soundbites. His term as a reality-show host was as bad as any reality show. He is driven to both for his Q rating, not power.
        Trump enjoys being known as a celebrity-billionaire, and these runs for president are to up his Q rating. Trump still wishes that it was the late 1980s again and he was the younger, brash star of the Wall Street heady days there.
        That said, a Trump presidency would at least restore masculinity to the white house.

  22. It’s not America’s dominance that forced the manufacturing jobs to China, etc.
    It’s was the government, ridiculous regulations, ridiculous minimum wages and unions.
    Because once other companies/corporations from all over the world started manufacturing in China(or where ever) American companies would not be able to compete on low enough prices.
    I read somewhere that if Apple started manufacturing in America an Iphone would have to sell for $5000-$6000 instead of $650. And a Mac Book would have to sell for over $10 000.
    I know hardcore apple users would buy literally anything with the apple logo(I bet if they pick up ordinary rocks and put their official apple logo and start selling them in their stores for $199 – they’d sell millions of rocks!). But most people would prefer to switch to Android and PC if they had to pay 5 grand for a phone and 10 grand for a laptop.
    There was a great article (I’ll look for it and if I find it I’ll post a link) where economists calculated that if there weren’t so many ridiculous regulations in the USA, the American economy would be worth $50-$55 trillion dollars instead of todays roughly $15 trillion.

    1. “It’s was the government, ridiculous regulations, ridiculous minimum wages and unions.”
      I am from the rust belt and watched back in 90’s as the biggest employer (manufacturing) closed its doors and went to Mexico (and later China). Had a friend on the manager team who told me the inside scoop. The contract review came up and the offer was decent package, but the union wanted to be the bully in the school yard and demonstrate their “power.” It was the straw that broke the camels back.
      The county never recovered those jobs (or tax revenues).

    2. “I read somewhere that if Apple started manufacturing in America an Iphone would have to sell for $5000-$6000 instead of $650. And a Mac Book would have to sell for over $10 000.”
      That’s just silly.
      “It’s was the government, ridiculous regulations, ridiculous minimum wages and unions.”
      Translation: “If we can’t pay our workers peanuts and dump our waste in the nearest stream, we’re going overseas.”

      1. “That’s just silly.”
        No, he is correct and you are attempting to dismiss his valid point. Are you intentionally ignorant?
        “If we can’t pay our workers peanuts and dump our waste in the nearest stream, we’re going overseas.”
        Emotional drivel. A company is forced to compete and if it does not, it will cease to exist.
        You exhibit the economic illiteracy of a leftist.

        1. Thanks and “Who is John Galt?” Last night I picked up Atlas Shrugged to re-read it(I re-read it every year at least once)

        2. Good man! Haven’t rugged “Shrugged” since college, but I have read all of Rand’s books. Reading some Sowell now and will start “In Confidence” by Anatoly Dobrynin shortly. You russian per chance?
          “Who is John Galt?”
          We know the answer.

        3. I’m Bulgarian but it’s close enough. Similar language and former part of the USSR.
          So It gives me just a little bit more street cred seeing and hearing firsthand what communism and socialism was like.
          And living in the poorest and second most corrupt European country really shows you how delusional the leftists of the West are. And how ungrateful they are of their history of freedom and capitalism.

        4. I have been often to E. Europe on business, but not Bulgaria. My wife is from Moscow and told me about her childhood. Many in the west would not be albe to comprehend and are in complete denial and will go to their graves that way.

        5. I know if you haven’t seen it check out a speech by a KGB agent who managed to escape before the Cold War.

          In these 2 videos he talked about the USSR’s plan to destroy America and it’s pretty much succeeded in almost any way possible.
          The only thing needed is for Martial Law and a new Tyrant.

        6. Thanks for posting that. I saw it several years ago. I’ve read what Pacepa had to say as well, but these guys are unknowns in the west.

        7. Of course not. No teacher or professor or media pundit would ever mention any of this to the young people.
          And to be honest I’m 22 now and I look around all the other people from teens to twenty-somethings (all over the west). I can say the future I see is really scary.
          What is coming in the next 35-50 years here in Europe is terrifying to me.
          I’m starting my tech start-up and hopefully in 5-10 years I’ll have money to move away from “The West”.
          I have my eye on New Zealand. There is such a vast amount of the most gorgeous land ever – it’s around the size of the UK but has a population half that of London (4.5m) so the vast majority of the country is uninhabited land. Find some very secluded place and build a big house. Then find like minded people and start our own Atlantis.
          Nowadays it’s very easy to live off the grid. With solar panels and tesla batteries. Indoors farming, cheap water filtration stations. And satellite dishes for internet.
          I can even run my company from there.
          I’ll find a good and virtuous woman to start a family and have lots of kids. Away from public schools and politics and leftist.
          And hopefully I’ll find enough like minded people to make it work.

        8. “What is coming in the next 35-50 years here in Europe is terrifying to me. ”
          I’ve been an expat in Europe for quite awhile and me thinks the problems will happen alot sooner than 35 years. The US will have it’s own (multiple) problems — as the stupidity is so deep there it hurts (eg. President Obama).
          I’ve been to NZ and Oz. They are in the hands of left wing loons and unless you are bringing serious $, they will not let Americans or Europeans immigrate there. You could marry a local girl, but… you know those risks. I have a number of friends, most former military, who are settling down outside of the west. Would suggest specific parts of South America or Asia pending your tastes. You can fall off the grid pretty easily in Alaska or remote parts of Canada– but man those winters suck.
          “I’ll find a good and virtuous woman…”
          If you permit to say, as I am double your age, this will be your hardest task in life. You seem to have the mental assets to succeed in your other pursuits and I am sure you will come out on top no matter where you go. Best of luck!

        9. Of course it is difficult to find a good and virtuous woman. And it should be. Ad I guess you’ve noticed there aren’t that many virtuous people who can think for themselves in this world nowadays.
          But I have one advantage that I’m only 22 and have 10-15 years to find her. And I know what I want. Now all it takes is some time.
          As for the NZ I didn’t know they were this bad with immigration. Aren’t lefties supposed to be pro open borders. Or that’s just the US and Europe – to fill up with people who have no education or willingness to work and contribute to society.
          The best is to work really hard so my start-up succeeds and then buy a private island for a couple of million somewhere with nice weather and secluded from society.
          If I find other willing participants from libertarian and anarcho-capitalist circles, we can even pool our money to buy some small island and build a society there.
          I’m starting to browse for a good island right now. To put the picture as my desktop to give mi motivation to work hard for a few years 😀

        10. You don’t have to do any work. Just teach other men how to find a good and virtuous woman and you will be fantastically wealthy. Young man, no one can tell if a woman is good and virtuous until he has been married to her for fifty years.

        11. “Find some very secluded place and build a big house. Then find like minded people and start our own Atlantis”
          Oh God, I’m IN. When can we start?
          I’ve dreamed of a collective of like minded-people, pooling money and resources and living the way many of us here talk about so longingly. Like the Amish I guess… just with a little bit more technology 😉
          Perhaps we can crowd-fund something, but I am fortunate enough to have done well enough in life to consider this now.
          I don’t know how we do this, but I know we must.

        12. I find your ideas intriguing. Where do I sign up to your newsletter? 😉
          Seriously though – surely a few of us like minded gents can pool enough money to buy an island? If we did, and built a traditionally focused society (ie. no lefty idiocy) the women WOULD BE QUEUING UP to join us.
          I’m reasonably successfully my uk based IT/telecoms business, and this idea appeals enormously. Is anyone seriously interested?

  23. The problem with Greer is that he doesn’t know shit about economics. No company hires unproductive people. It simply doesn’t make sense. His criticism makes more sense when directed towards government employees.
    His approach would only hasten our way towards a dark age. Living with less? Nonsense. The whole of humanity has been evolving towards living with more. That is the definition of wealth and we are far wealthier today than we have ever been in our existence. Greer is the kind of guy who would only be happy if everyone else is as poor as he is.
    I do not understand this obsession with oil as if it is the last energy source we will ever find. It is not. We had energy before oil and we will have energy afterwards.

    1. I’ve agreed with a lot of your posts….but not this one. Retails is one glaring example of unproductive employees….and it isnt a lack of new energy sources, it is a lack of investing in those sources with the incoming doomsday
      if oil crashes without a backup we are fucked and that is our current course.
      if oil crashes with a back up….its rocky but survivable.
      the real problem is the whole damn system is on its knees. insane debt, wars, social problems, and a whole lot more hitting at once. all of this hitting at once could theoretically knock things back a few hundred years or at least make technology scarce. but really its a crapshoot in terms of predicting it.

      1. I went to a retail store the other day. Bought a new suit after lots of advice from the assistant. He helped me pick out a tie and a shirt, measured the suit up to fit me perfectly and sent it off to the tailor’s to be finished.
        Which part of this is unproductive?
        Also, I work in an office. Am I wasting time and resources?
        If, if? And if it doesn’t? And if there is investment in energy sources that you are not aware of? And if oil runs out will we all just throw our hands up and give up or will we just stop whining and find something else like Man has since the beginning of time?

        1. When it comes to oil and transportation, Tesla is the future.. Just take a look at what they’re doing. It’s amazing. I rode a Tesla S model. It’s a bullet.

        2. The public transport infrastructure in the US is poor for a 1st world country so they rely on cars to take them anywhere.

        3. It’s not necessarily that man.. Yeah, the infrastructure is not stellar I agree.. Problem here is distances are huge.. You go 100 miles any direction, and you are not out of the populated area.. And it’s not like Japan where everybody is on top of each other.. It’s very spread out and so it’s cost ineffective.. There is no way to do without cars. With that being said take a look at Tesla. Their plan is to come up with a model for the masses priced around $25K. When that happens, a lot of the towel heads will start losing their.. hmmm heads?

        4. Electric cars are powered by the grid, which runs on coal and nat gas, and they wanna do away with coal…how do we make up for that shortfall? Coal is still like 40-50% of the US energy mix…

        5. I am aware of the distances mate. It’s the same in Europe, ppl who live in rural or small towns use cars to commute. I’m talking public transport at state level, mainly around cities of 5-600,000 people and more. Suburban trains (Paris RER, Southeastern in south-east London and surrounding counties, S-Bahn in every major city in Germany), more metros and electric buses. These are not economically effective overnight and may never be but this investment has to be made at some point. These in turn free up highway traffic and reduce pollution.

        6. If badly managed, public transport might as well not exist, as it is a huge money sponge.

        7. citing an exception doesnt disprove a rule. anyone that has ever worked at retail can tell you of useless employees. retail is basically working for feminism. it really isnt deniable.
          there are investments in other energy types to be sure, but none have gotten too far off the ground because government regulations + not as cheap as oil + media spinning things. I dont think we’ll hit a total dark age, but unless we actively start replacing oil with something like nuclear energy is one that I am a fan of, then the oil problem will eventually become a crisis….of course with America being very very unstable…..thats the question
          can we get off oil or replace it before America collapses?
          if we have a replacement lined up en mass, then absolutely we’d be alright probably but a collapsing country is still a huge X factor.
          This article touches on it a little….but modern man WONT find something else. MODERN MAN is a weak pathetic creature, with less muscle, less testosterone, is lazier and has less drive than our forefathers. I very much doubt modern mans capability of surviving a crisis… fact I doubt mine, I’ve had a good comfy life which doesnt bode well for a collapse.

        8. I agree with you, problem here is metra is FED managed, and it’s…. a train wreck so to speak.

        9. Its funny how people keep saying “well I guess you’ve never done X” when in actual fact I have! I worked retail for many years and I can tell you from experience that unproductive employees don’t last. You have targets and if you consistently fail to meet them, you’re out. This chap was not an exception he was the rule. Now if you’re talking about Best Buy employees I understand but somebody there is keeping those shelves stocked and taking your money at the check-out regardless of what you think of them.
          I don’t think oil will be a problem in our lifetimes, perhaps not for centuries. Lets keep in mind that cars are becoming more efficient and there is a push towards more efficient appliances. If the pace of energy use starts to outpace supply two things will happen. 1) the price will rise and people will use less; 2) companies will look for alternative energy sources to increase the supply of energy. It is simple economics. Trust me mate, you don’t need to worry.
          Don’t worry about Modern Man. He will soon be extinct and be replaced by the Dominant Species on the planet. Us.

      2. Retail, of the kind you are thinking of, is full of people too dumb to get better jobs but too smart to be a (put your own example in, Im being good today).
        If retail is dumb, we need to raise the education standards, or switch off the TV and mobile phones.

    2. Woooah Bob.
      “No company hires unproductive people. It simply doesn’t make sense.”
      What non-affirmative action, non-hiring quota universe are you logging on from?

      1. Hiring quotas are just one of the ways in which the market leaders try to eliminate competition. While they have money to employ women in sectors in which there is little female expertise, small companies will suffer because they don’t have the resources to employ more personnel which leads them to fire some men, employ less competent female workers (best ones out of the small numbers go to the best companies) which will forever make them lack capital.

      2. Woohah! Melmoth. I’m in the UK. No affirmative action here.
        That said, I don’t think affirmative action has quite the influence you think it does. I never met anyone who was hired because of “affirmative action”.
        That said, even if they were, they still need to be productive. Affirmative action can’t make you hire a Fat Crack Ho to be your Senior Accountant.

        1. Ha ha. Yes. Sir Mix A Lot. You’re a brother, right? Maybe you’re in to that stuff then (not judging). You should visit. Actually you shouldn’t, it’s not that great. Save your travel money for the places closer to the equator.

        2. But in the mid and lower positions of many companies (like the one I work at), there are quite a few useless, affirmative action, unproductive peeps being hired, and the rest of us are doing the real work and keeping the place profitable.
          We are carrying the lazy fucks.

    3. A dooms-dayer has to preach doom.
      Nuclear power is making a come back and fracking isn’t going to go away despite what OPEC or Russia’s (who were sponsoring anti-fracking green groups in the US) daily output is. Neccessity is truly the mother of invention.

      1. Green groups basically have a problem with anyone doing anything that isn’t what they do. They want to bring everything back to “nature” whatever that means. If they want to live that way, fine, but they want everyone else to live that way, like it or not.

        1. Yup.
          “They want to bring everything back to “nature” whatever that means.”
          Spoke to a couple of them before. After a few beers, they reveal their intentions to making a “sustainable world” through mass murder and keeping the population to about 500 billion. I noticed they all have the same tendancy to be (1) white, (2) despise other people and (3) never see themselves to be a corpse in their “final solution.”
          They are people with evil intent.

        2. 500million, not 500billion is what they want.
          The earth can sustain an even higher population than now even if people live close to nature. About 40% of the earth (not including antartica) is unpopulated but habitable.
          The French countryside had a much higher population in the middle ages than it does now. Now, people live in huge cities while a few farmers grow massive amounts of crops using chemicals and tractors while livestock is pumped full of antibiotics and reared in horrible conditions (pigs and chickens especially.) If manpower could be diverted to healthier ways of producing food, while still enjoying modern technology, people could live happier healthier lives. Men’s testosterone levels would rise with healthier food and outdoor work.
          With the growing popularity of organic products and as whites flee the cities infested with you-know-who. This change may slowly be taking form.

        3. By what means do they achieve the mass murder?
          I am content to wait for a virus that feeds on the overly aggresive types. Or clamydias big bad brother to limit the population growth, or an ice age.

        4. In other words, they see themselves as the heroes in a Apocalypse movie? Sweet…
          I always had the impression that people are being “contaminated” by the fiction as if it could be true. You gave me another proof.
          And I’m sure that when you said ‘500 billions’ you mean ‘500 millions’, right?

        5. Yes– 500 million. Sorry for the typo.
          Try discussing “Global Warming” with these freaks and it gets heated quick (pun unintended). The Green movment is a Jim Jones type cult.

    4. “No company hires unproductive people”
      Somebody’s never met an HR professional, or the boss’ son.

    5. “No company hires uproductive people”, eh? I can tell that you have never worked in a corporation. In a large corporations, people (meaning women) are hired to fill quotas and for symbolic reasons.

      1. You’ve made a fool of yourself. I’ve worked in large corporations for decades. I have never heard of a single person hired to fill a quota. That is not to say it doesn’t happen, but even if someone was hired to fill a quota that does not mean they are unproductive. Think your argument through next time.

        1. Then you are not very well informed. You have had your theory disproved by several people now. That means that your theory is wrong. Don’t act like an irrational feminist now, by refusing to listen to facts.

        2. Don’t be daft. No one has disproved anything I have said. Several people, including you have merely offered their opinions. That is far from earth-shattering proof that my “theory” is wrong.

        3. No, we have offered our factual experiences and knowledge – not opinions. It’s like you were to say that red-headed women doesn’t exist, and not believe anyone who told you that they have in fact seen red-headed women.
          You present your opinion (which IS an opinion) as if it were a matter of fact. In stead you should write: “Based on my very limited experience and insight, I don’t know of such things. However, I am probably wrong since I lack knowledge on the subject”.

        4. You are not covering yourself in glory. You first said I was offering a theory and now you say I am offering an opinion. You are not consistent. Second, I never claimed to be offering anything other than opinion. That said, I am making an argument from logic – it is not logical for a profit seeking enterprise to hire people who cost more than the value they create.
          Your argument is not based on experience (and it is irrational for you to speak for other people – stop saying “we”) it is based on your memory and your memory is unreliable. Likewise it is based on your opinion that certain people are unproductive, when clearly you have no idea.
          If your argument was based on experience then you would have provided your empirical study of n >1 (rather than the anecdotal evidence you provide) which provides evidence that companies hire unproductive people.

        5. OK , so now you admit that it was just an opinion/theory on your part. That is progress. When I say “we” I am in this case referring to the author of the article and myself (although anyone with experience above entry level in the corporate world could probably attest to the same).
          As I am stating a fact based on personal experiences, it is indeed based on experience. How odd to claim otherwise. If I were to claim that it is impossible for humans to swim, you could probably refute that statement based on you own personal experience.
          However, you can of course choose to not believe what other people tell you. You evidently base your view of the world solely on what you have seen with your own eyes. Keep sucking on that blue pill, it is oh so comforting.

        6. so now you admit that it was just an opinion/theory on your part.

          First of all, your implication is that before I was saying otherwise when as I have already clearly stated, I haven’t claimed one way or the other. Second I am not admitting anything. Third, opinion and theory are not synonymous. You are really out of your depth here.
          You have not offered a single fact. You simply made a statement that you have not backed up with evidence.
          Providing an example from “personal experience” is not a fact, it is an anecdote that may or may be true or representative of the category as a whole. In other words it is unreliable and proves nothing.
          Finally, you have not even attempted to deal with the logical argument I made. It is not logical for a profit seeking enterprise to hire people who cost more than the value they create.
          The reason for this is that you do not understand why logic trumps your argument from “personal experience”. You also don’t understand why referring to unspecified “other people” does nothing to back up your argument. People who are wrong don’t suddenly become “right” just because you group them all together.

        7. I have presented what I know to be facts. You can choose to believe it or not, that is up to you.
          Firstly, you seem to be under the impression that everything a company does is logical, rational and profitable. If that were the case every company would be massively succesful. But it is not the case. Companies are led by people. And people are often irrational, illogical and stupid.
          Secondly, you have now suddenly changed your wording. You stated at first that no company would hire an unproductive employee. Now you say that no company would hire an employee that does not generate value. Those are two very different things. A person can generate value even though he/she is thoroughly incompetent and unproductive.
          I will give you some examples of where companies hire/promotes unproductive employees:
          1. Because the boss wants to fuck a girl or is fucking her. You think this doesn’t happen? Oh yes, it does. In this case, she generates value to the big man by sucking his cock.
          2. Because the employee has leverage over the company in some way. For example related to point 1.
          3. Because the employee is the son/daughter of an important client. You do the math.
          4. Because the employee is the son/daughter of an otherwise important person, for example a politician.
          5. Because the employee is a brown-nosing sociopath who manages to lie his/her way up the ladder.
          6. Because it generates more value through PR and government contracts to have unproductive, incompetent females in senior positions than to have all men (all just for show, of course, men do the actual work).
          etc. etc.
          So, this is how the world works. Believe it or not. You are better off not believing it, I’ll grant you that.

        8. David, don’t argue with him anymore on this topic. Maybe things are different in the UK, but here in the USA, to say that companies are not hiring (and keeping) unproductive women and minorities to fill quotas is just delusional. The trick is that there always has to be enough productive and motivated people to carry the affirmative action losers.

    6. This guy is a *Druid* for heaven’s sake. Why is he even being taken seriously? I though New Age was “blue pill.” Why don’t we find some Zulu isangoma and ask him about weighty socio-economic issues? If he’s not busy burning witches, that is.

      1. One look at his wide-eyed, slightly crazed expression tells you everything you need to know.

  24. Every empire falls, sooner or later.American will fall also.And it will fall from within.Your multiculturalism is eating you as we speak.In small bites.
    The painful truth is that the heard is too large, globally.Competition is too fierce.The problem is that we as a people are not psychologically different from are predecessors of at least 5000 years.We are still greedy, envious, jealous individuals that we were back then.
    And for that kind of beings only solution is thinning of the heard, usually by war or disease.But therein lies the problem, we become so technologically advanced that conventional war or disease will not dent the numbers much.So it will have to be nuclear war or genetically engineered virus that will do the trick.
    It’s not PC to say, but war is good for society, even if it is bad for individuals.We as a specie always grew in and after war.What is a lion in animal world, is a war in human society, it keeps grazing animals number in check, ensures that strongest and smartest survive so that society wont o stale and weak as a whole.
    Peace is all well and good, but too long time of peace is always detrimental for society, just like war that lasts too long.For everything, there is a season, and moderation in everything is the key of balance.

    1. War may have been useful in that way once; when it was small scale and based on skill. Modern warfare is technological and surviving is pretty much a matter of luck not skill. When you are one of hundreds of thousands of men rushing machine guns and barbed wire while being shelled by artillery, skill is mostly being 6 inches to the left or right of where the bullet went.
      Anyway, war became really unpopular when many if not most of the killed became the civilians, including a lot of women. While the killed and maimed were limited to disposable men, it was AOK. When women were at risk the equation changed.

  25. No energy source is inherently cost-effective or not, in a fundamental economic sense. They are all ways of converting some commodities (labor, raw materials, land) into energy. The only way an energy source could be inherently cost-ineffective would be if energy itself was an input larger than the energy gained out.
    The green energy sources are currently unprofitable because oil is a cheaper alternative. If oil becomes scarce and expensive, that would no longer be the case. It would mean more expensive energy and thus an overall decrease in prosperity, but not the end of civilization.

  26. Greer “believes we have hit peak oil”?
    Its a fact- it happened in late 05/early 06.
    Look what has happened since then.

  27. Most civilizations fall because of weak and corrupt leaders. The usual factors like economic trouble, depletion of resources, invasion are most often the result of crappy leadership.

  28. Do we actually need 90% of the technology? New medical devices, dentistry equipment….YES…most of the other stuff is consumer fodder- mobile phones, live without, Car, live without, can cycle, computer, live without, can read books, planes, live without, take the boat……….actually there’s so much stuff you can actually live without, and your body and mind will probably be healthier…I think women will find the adjustment much more difficult than men.

  29. Bring on the collapse! Men in third world countries work less, have more fun, and get more pussy.

  30. This Greer guy sounds more like a wanabe prophet than an historian. Historian are just supposed to give us a clear vision of the past so we can try to understand the future since human behavior is repetitive.

  31. “Critics of the peak oil theory will point to the fracking industry to
    show that we will continue to develop new ways of getting more oil.
    Greer is skeptical. He suggests that the only reason that fracking was
    created was because the price of oil reached such a high price that
    fracking became cost effective.”

    Umm, yes. That is the reason why ANY method replaces another method – because of the desire to be cost efficient.
    As for “fossil fuel” – you really believe that oil is the result of dinosaurs dying, and instead of having their bones picked by animals and insects they remained intact until they turned to oil? Right. Russian scientists have long worked with the theory that it is a primordial goo that keeps rising out of the earth’s core. The traces of life in the oil could easily come from the creatures in the earth, picked up on the way to the surface. We have seen how oil fields that were supposed to run out long ago have been refilled from below – in Saudi Arabia for example.
    There are three times more oil mixed with mud than there is pure oil. So no, not gonna run out of oil any time soon. (Btw, we were supposed to “run out of oil” in the 1970s. Now we have more oil than ever. Funny how that worked out. We were also supposed to run out of magnesium, copper etc, despite having literally only scraped the earth’s surface.) It might be more expensive to purify mixed oil, but prices for goods increase a little bit every time a good is used. Demand rising, prices go up. That in turn provides more money for businesses to develop technology and methods in order to make production more efficient and thereby cheaper.
    And in fact, even if all oil production would stop right now, we would still have more than a century in oil reserves. Consider how science has developed since we got electricity, just a century and a half ago. Then try to imagine where science and technology will be a hundred years from now.

  32. It’s gotta be looked at in pieces. Civilization wise we’re already in a Dark Age. Humans have had “technology” since they learned to rub two sticks together. Starting in the 1800’s it became technology controlling us. And going by historical cycles, the U.S. is ready for a Dictator. We’re already living under an Oligarchy and the people see it and are fed up. If things are on course, they’ll elect someone to fix things who’ll end up becoming a dictator. That’s what happened in Nazi Germany. Hitler was elected, then took over. It almost happened here with Bush and the homosexual-run and staffed Department of Homeland Security, but the system in place prevailed. Right now politicians are doing all they can to dismantle our political system while telling us they’re providing solutions. It was the Oligarchs controlling the Neo-Cons behind Bush. Now the same people are behind the Democrats. When one of the hand-picked Presidents is able to take control it’ll be another dictator.

  33. I should probably submit an article giving out a candid appraisal of something rather anathema to most Americans – Monarchy. One of my problems with American political discourse is that, more often than not, it almost always devolves into meaningless platitudes and phrases that nobody is clear on what they mean.
    One of the great truths I learned in my travels is that most people really don’t know what Freedom actually is, and that’s from across the vast political spectrum. I used to think American conservatives had a pretty good idea of what it was, certainly clearer than American liberals, but I’m convinced that the pursuits of comforts for their own sake has equally blinded them as well. They may understand the importance of morality and character, but when it comes time to fight for them, which is often, they’re absent from the battlefield.
    This is the problem with Republics. They never last a year, if that, past their inception, and all it takes is just one violation of the law, already written on the books, to begin the transition from Republic to Oligharchy. President George Washington did this, when he appointed people to his cabinet; it was well intentioned, and necessary, but it was not specified in the Constitution at all. Republics require the utmost sense of objective morality and justice from the citizens, who must always be ready to do their duty as citizens in order to maintain things. But, very few people have the willingness, or the clout, really, to do it.
    Because of how elected officials get elected in the first place, ordinary citizens rarely, if ever, get elected to high office on their own power. in order for ordinary citizens even to be heard by their masters, they have to have a lot of power, in the form of money and media connections, to be able to buy a politician’s time and power enough to have their problem or agenda even considered.
    But in a hereditary monarchy, the monarch is not too beholden to special interests (we called them Nobles back in the day). He’s the king, and he got there by birthright, to take away the nature of the succession away from powerful special interests who seek to dominate the country. Granted, this is an ideal, but in our modern American political discourse, republics are always represented by their ideal, not their realities, compared to the realities and sordid histories of monarchies. We need to change that.
    A common peasant or subject could petition the king for redress of grievances directly. Tsar Ivan IV (the Terrible, so called) had a basket outside the palace that anyone could put a note in, and he would read them every night as he retired to bed. This was rather common among monarchs who still held reign over their nations, rather than as figureheads for the state. You might say that this didn’t guarantee the king would do anything about the subject’s plight, but compare that to petitioning your congressman or the president about anything these days. If you’re not important enough or powerful enough to help get that guy reelected, he won’t give you the time of day.
    Special interests don’t have any special stake in the nations they operate in, even back in medieval times. The aforementioned Tsar’s enemies among the nobility would not hesitate to go curry favor with a foreign element when they couldn’t sway him with words or even with force. Most hereditary monarchs felt more beholden to their nation rather than their nobility on the whole, and this was true even for Elizabeth I, of England, who often had to hold a sword to her own Privy Council’s throats in order to get done what she wanted done (who basically got her on the throne lest Mary Queen of Scots take over, and have another Catholic on the throne).
    This is an oversimplication, I admit, but the point of all this is to get us all to see things a lot more clearly than we see them now, without all the romantic meaningless discourse. If we are to be a republic, we have to realize that most people do not want to be citizens, and most really shouldn’t be. When you have 65 million voters willingly vote for a man, twice, for the presidency, that has no business whatsoever being there because he’s a treasonous fool, we have to reconsider citizenship. Maybe Robert Heinlein had the right idea in his book, not the film, Starship Troopers. Limit the franchise to those who earn it by working in Federal Service in various capacities for a few years. In his work, the only thing citizens get over “civilians” is the franchise and the right to run for public office. It might not solve everything, but it would certainly prevent a lot of our present calamities.

  34. Living with less is some thing I’ve been doing for years ,no cell phone just lap top and a an I.POD and I keep the lap top at home and no car ,I walk allot.

  35. 1. US Productivity is almost the highest in the world, those nations higher than us are minimal, with very low populations and a high degree of excess energy production.
    2. US tax policy COULD be a force of increased productivity and employment, but is STUCK in a 19th Century model, this ALSO includes an antiquated banking structure.
    3. US regulatory policy is OUTRAGEOUS, and should be oriented to common sense rather than a political source of social change, based upon foolish anti-science.
    4. US military power is the most effective force of political expediency, that is under utilized, over controlled, and shrinking.
    5. US Immigration policy is an absolutely suicidal process that is being used by the collectivists to increase their power and speed our destruction.
    4. Morality that destroys Western Civilization is abhorrent and should be eliminated at the source: Liberal-Progressive-Collectivism.
    5. The US education system is based upon a 17th Century model and controlled by the collectivists and should be limited to LOCAL control with the elimination of national unions as the source for much of the failure to educate out future.
    6. Welfare recipients should not be paid to have children, nor should the support be greater than the MINIMAL for SURVIVAL with SEVERE limitations placed upon the type of purchases allowed with cash cards provided by the government. Cell phones should not be a government benefit.
    7. Political machinations of the Free Market should be eliminated, immediately. The Tax Structure should be based upon consumption, not productivity. A transaction tax that ELIMINATES ALL OTHER TAXES should be immediately employed.
    8. The Federal Government should be limited in size, scope, and spending limits on social issues not DIRECTLY listed by the US Constitution.
    9. ALL SUPREME COURT JUSTICES should be replaced with justices who ONLY follow the Constitution and should not be allowed to write laws from the bench.
    10. We should repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.
    11. All National Debts should be frozen with NO NEW DEBT issued until we have a balanced national budget.
    12. Social Security and Medicare should be eliminated for all people under the age of 50; “retirement” is a socialist concept and should have never been accepted and codified by the federal government.
    IF we follow these simple ideas, we can exceed our furthest dreams. We would not have to worry about the future.

  36. If you want to know what to do, just look at successful people in a 3rd world country. Own lots of small personal businesses that can operate beneath the government’s prying eyes (and taxes) that people have to have… like small markets, laundries, etc. Cash based needs based businesses.

  37. His prognosis for our current technological civilization is bleak. If Greer is right, our civilization has already reached its peak and we are starting a descent that is going to result in a complete restructuring of the way we live our lives, including rampant unemployment, increasing violence, and the loss of technology.

    Arrant, inexcusable nonsense.
    Catastrophe-selling is a common way to make a buck in the manosphere, and it’s a shameless kind of peddling. I can’t help but picture the old “doctors” with their horse-drawn carts flogging cocaine-based syrups when I hear this foolishness.
    We are currently at the knee curve of exponential technological growth. More and more industries and practices are subsumable under the information theory paradigm. Their practices and products are increasingly susceptible to digitization and thereby to massive, profitable, productive changes in how they operate.
    In the 1960s small amounts of information could be processed and manipulated by million dollar computers filling huge rooms if not small buildings. Millions of times that information now operates through a device that slips into your pocket, and within two decades will complete the continuation of a comparable reduction in size and increase in price-performance thanks to nanotechnology (experiments in pico- and femto- technology are well underway) that will suffuse the material that surrounds you and operates within your bloodstream in the form of cancer- detecting and -eliminating nanobots that work like vaccines. And that’s just the beginning.
    We’re within decades of creating strong artificial intelligence that after a few decades more is likely to result in superintelligence. Even pessimistic projections of Moore’s law predict neurocomputation operating at the level of and with the intellectual capacity of trillions of human brains, and that will occur within the average desktop computer.
    If you focus on a largely imaginary impending “doom” not only are you in error, but you’re missing out on the greatest technological boom in the history of mankind. Why do you publish such junk instead of the work of Hans Moravec, Nick Bostrum, and Ray Kurzweil?

  38. To be honest, a guy who is inspired by Lord of the Rings is not someone I would follow or at least take seriously. But he has some points though.

  39. The concept of ‘peak oil’ has been so thoroughly refuted, I am surprised to still see it presented. Oil is already in the $40s and is declining. Not only are we never going to run out of energy, we are never going to run out of oil, or hydrocarbon fuel generally. I recommend “The Bottomless Well” for people interested in learning more on this subject.

Comments are closed.