Intermittent freakouts

Whenever there’s a political/military crisis, like that current one with Iran, YouTube starts recommending survival, prepping, EDC and similar videos, as if the level of freaking out in the general population had temporarily exceeded the background noise level at which it resides in normal circumstances. And it’s actually funny, because if your response to a potential world war is to buy a “survival knife” or something else “tactical” (more accurately, “tacticool”), or if you think you’ll survive a SHTF event by getting a “bug-out bag” and going to the woods, you really do have a problem.

But the EDC (every day carry) videos did make me think; what is it that I carry with me every day, and, as a corollary, what objects do I need so much that I would replace them immediately if lost or destroyed. And, as a further corollary, what is a dependency list of things one would run out of in a collapse scenario; things you would need to stock up on, or go hunting for if you ran out.

So let me go through the process slowly, because I’m usually quick to jump to conclusions and my thought processes remain unclear.

I recently had a nasty little situation. I have a habit of going for long walks in the nearby hills, on trekking roads, and there isn’t really any mobile network coverage, since the terrain is basically canyons and hills. A few kilometers in, on a steep climb, I renewed a poorly healed ankle injury. It was surprisingly nasty, because it felt as if I had a nail driven up my tibia, instead of having a foot; I couldn’t even stand on that leg. Since I couldn’t walk properly, I thought of making a crutch out of a branch or something, and then I saw that I left my Swiss army knife in another jacket. So I was few kilometers in, on steep terrain, injured, no cell coverage, and the temperature was barely above freezing. It’s a very unlikely combination of things, but that’s exactly how you get fucked, and it’s also how we get to the concept of EDC – I didn’t have my pocket knife with me at the only time in years that I actually needed it. It didn’t take a global apocalyptic event for me to possibly need to improvise a crutch, or even make a fire in the forest if I couldn’t walk and I got cold. In a few hours it would get unpleasant. I would also need water, but fortunately I always carry a water bottle with me into the woods. It never came to really being an emergency; I rested my ankle for a few minutes, discovered that it was a specific motion that aggravated the injury and learned to limp in a way that didn’t hurt, and I slowly got to the car. During that slow walk home, I decided I’ll buy enough pocket knives that I always have one with me because they’ll be in every jacket I own. That damn thing would easily solve a problem that almost happened. So, yes, my normal EDC/survival gear is very simple. A water bottle, paper handkerchiefs, a Victorinox Huntsman pocket knife, a butane lighter, an iPhone and a can of pepper spray (because of dogs and wild boars). This combination gives me tools to work with wood in an emergency, it gives me light (iPhone), fire and defense against possibly rabid wildlife; I know the normal animals are unlikely to bother me. Yes, the boars are extremely common, and I’ve seen tracks everywhere, and they actually harass people in the nearby villages, so it’s not just a theoretical danger. They roam around in large packs and the hunters don’t seem to be doing anything about it because they are protected by some law. I actually photographed a dead boar in a creek at one point.

Also, I occasionally pass by some very weird specimens of human wildlife. Nothing threatening so far, but the idea of stumbling upon a drug deal in progress with a camera in hand is very unpleasant. They might think I took a picture. You can imagine the problem. I would feel safer if I could carry a gun, but this is Croatia, and gun ownership is so regulated I actually feel safer without one, because owning it would place me on a state-maintained list I would rather not be on, if I can help it. That’s one thing where America has a big advantage; there, I wouldn’t have to explain why I’m carrying a gun in a forest full of boars and, potentially, dangerous criminals. Although, things seem to be changing there, and not in a good way.

As you can see, considering what I do almost on a daily basis, my approach to safety equipment is rather minimalistic, because my assumption is that it will always be easier to walk home or call for help than to create a shelter and make fire in an emergency; the distances are simply not that great. Also, I did encounter wildlife (foxes and deer, mostly), even at very close proximity, but nothing bothered me and was actually very happy to get away in a hurry. In theory, I could justify carrying all kinds of survival gear for unlikely emergencies, but in reality, a water bottle, pepper spray, pocket knife, lighter, lip balm, paper handkerchiefs and a phone are what I actually have with me.

What I find interesting is that some people will find my choice of things to carry excessive, while others will find it extremely insufficient. There seem to be two main schools of thought: the first is that noting bad will happen if you have pink thoughts throughout life, and the second is that Murphy was an optimist and all kinds of shit will eventually happen if you’re here long enough. I’m somewhere in the middle: there’s a matter of probability. I prepare for probable events. It’s very probable that I’ll have to blow my nose, be thirsty, have to pee, pick mushrooms or chestnuts in season, and change clothes because I’m sweaty in the summer. It’s improbable, but possible that I’ll at one point have to deal with hostile wildlife, or cut off a branch and shape it to fit my needs. It is very unlikely, but still in the realm of possibility, that I will have to light a fire and camp in the woods because I’m too injured to walk to the car, or drive, and there’s no cellphone coverage, so I’ll basically have to wait until someone stumbles upon me and walks to the point where he can call the mountain rescue service. That last one looks incredibly improbable, because I’ve been walking in those woods for literally decades, in all kinds of weather, and I never got even close to being hurt, until that situation a few days ago, when I suddenly couldn’t walk, kilometers into the woods, and with no signal on the phone, because canyon. So, basically, things never happen, until they do, and then you’re suddenly ten percent away from the worst case scenario and things were perfectly fine and routine minutes ago.

I don’t prepare for unrealistic or unsurvivable scenarios. Yes, there’s a scenario where I stumble upon a crime in progress, deep in the woods, and yes, bodies were disposed of in several cases, very close to the places where I walk, and the criminals in question might simply decide not to risk a witness and shoot me. That’s one of those “shit happens” scenarios where not even a gun would be likely to save me, and there’s no point in preparing for something that’s both very unlikely and very unsurvivable. It’s like preparing for a meteor strike directly on your house; pointless. If that happens, it means it’s your time to die and that’s it. But there’s a grey area between not preparing for extreme scenarios, and not preparing for anything. There are unlikely scenarios that can be solved with very small additions to the content of my pockets, and that’s what I’m quite willing to do. That little can of pepper spray is actually very comforting when you hear something big moving through the woods close to you. Sure, it usually turns out to be a deer in a hurry, very much minding its own business, but it could be a rabid fox going straight for my throat. I’ve seen a video of a rabid fox attack, and that was fucking scary. It doesn’t go away, it doesn’t get afraid, it isn’t deterred when you hit it, it just attacks, again and again, until it’s dead. I don’t know what a rabid boar would do, and I don’t really care to find out.

I don’t care if someone thinks I’m underprepared, or taking excessive risks. That’s fine; everybody has his own threshold of risk tolerance; some wouldn’t dare to ever go into the woods, some wouldn’t even carry water or a phone. To each his own. However, I must admit I am disturbed by those people who think that no preparations of any kind could ever be valid. Every fucking year the mountain rescue service (which BTW is excellent here in Croatia) has to get people out of trouble because they went hiking into dangerous mountain terrain with flip-flops, no water and in bad weather. Yes, they actually do that, especially the tourists of the hipster or hippie variety, who think nature is that wonderful thing that would never harm you if you only think positive.


I encountered venomous snakes of the vipera ammodytes variety on the forest path very close to where I live; they were minding their own business, as snakes do, but if I wasn’t careful and I stepped on one, it would probably have bitten me and I’d be having a serious medical emergency in a hurry. It’s unlikely to be bitten by a venomous snake here, but it still happens to someone every year. To make absolutely no preparations, for instance go into the woods without a phone or a radio of some kind, without water, poorly dressed, and alone, you are basically setting yourself up to be fucked. And there are people who do exactly that, every single year, and the rescuers have to waste money, time, effort and other resources getting those stupid urban hipsters out of trouble. Honestly, I would prefer not to be that guy. Sure, if a snake bites me I’ll call for help because walking out would actually circulate the venom faster and worsen the situation, but if I can whittle a crutch and limp myself out with a broken leg, immobilised with a splint I made on the spot with my knife, some wood and pieces of my shirt, I’m going to do it.

OK, let’s return to the original point I was trying to make. There’s no point in preparing for unsurvivable scenarios, such as a full nuclear exchange between superpowers, or a KT-type extinction event. If that happens, oh well. However, before the last regional war there were old people who had the second world war in living memory, and they prepared for a possible war by having well stocked and protected basements, and young people made fun of them, because “everybody knows” there’s not going to be a war. When the war actually broke out, and there was no food and heavy metal was falling down from the sky, those same young people were very happy that grandpa had canned food and a well built basement to use as shelter when shit hit the fan. So, yes, there’s a very thick grey zone between “nothing happens” and “there’s a nuclear war and everybody dies”, and some reasonable preparations can greatly mitigate the worst outcomes. For instance, if there’s a regional war and you have gold bullion stored, you can take it and run, and you didn’t lose everything, you don’t have to start anew from zero. If there’s an earthquake and water is contaminated by raw sewage, if you have water purification equipment and chemicals, and if you have containers for storing water, you’re in a much better position than everybody who doesn’t. If there’s a fire and you have a fire extinguisher handy, you might be able to solve the problem yourself and with minimal damage, instead of losing your home and possibly your family members.

But then there are those people who think that, if shit hits the fan, they’ll take a “bug-out bag” full of “survival gear” and head into the woods and “live off the land”. That kind of thinking is actually more dangerous than not preparing for anything at all, because they are actually increasing the probability of a bad outcome with their “prepping”. In an emergency scenario, the woods are the place where you go to die. Your greatest probability of success lies in pooling resources with neighbours and organizing something on a community level, not in collecting “tacticool” knives and fire rods from Amazon. What you need to do is stay put, stay informed, and organize or join a community effort. That’s where reasonable preparations pay off: someone will have means of purifying water. Another will have canned food in store. Someone else will have antibiotics and bandages. Another will have insulin injections. And some will have weapons. Pooled together, this creates something that is actually likely to get you through the initial wave of shit, and to the point where the outside help starts coming. But if there is no outside help, if everything is affected or destroyed, you must realize that your chances are slim to none. Still, you must realize that “tacticool” equipment is most likely a waste of money and a psychological crutch. It’s a substitute for actual preparedness. Get out of immediate danger. Shelter. Water. Food. Medical equipment. Defense. Those are the priorities. It’s completely unlikely that you’ll be able to make it through on your own, so pooling resources with others is your best chance; however well equipped you think you are, you will have to sleep, you might get sick, you might lack some critically needed resource, and you will lose control and die. But if you share your stack of food and other resources with others, it is true that it will last shorter, but it’s also true that you will thus gain others who will stand guard while you sleep instead of waiting for you to fall asleep so that they can kill and rob you, and if there’s something you need, someone will probably find it somewhere.

Gold and silver getting scarce

Essentially, things are moving more slowly than I expected them to, but they are following the predicted pattern. The spot prices are completely fixed due to the fact that most “metal” being traded exists on paper only, but physical metal is getting scarce, especially since the central banks mopped up majority of it. Having in mind that only a small fraction of the population actually has physical metal, and the majority didn’t wake up and smell the coffee yet, you can imagine what will happen when the majority tries to convert their paper savings into gold and silver, only to find out that there isn’t any on the market.

In Germany, a small “gold rush” in the order of magnitude of 200 people daily per retail store was sufficient to completely exhaust the amount of metal available for sale.

About exceptions

There are several things I saw people do in online conversations that annoy me, because they think they are using arguments, and they are in fact committing logical fallacies.

The first one is citing exceptions to disprove a rule. They will cite a smart black man and a retarded Asian in an attempt to disprove statistical findings about race and intelligence. They will find a woman who managed to give birth in late 30s, or one who is happily unmarried in her 60s, they will find a quiet Italian and a loudmouth German, or a Lesbian that actually doesn’t hate men, and say “gotcha”. To that, my answer is that sociology isn’t mathematics. In mathematics, if you state there are no even primes, and I cite number 2, your theory is disproved and that’s the end of it. However, even in mathematics, there’s statistics and probability. In statistics, citing a sample of 1 in order to invalidate a rule is worthless. Let me use an example.

This is a dark image. It was intentionally shot as such, and histogram shows a statistical distribution of pixel luminance values. On the left side are the pixels with values closer to 0, which means black, and on the right side are the pixels with values closer to 255, which means white.

What the political left wants us all to believe, under threat of violence, is that you can’t say that an image is dark just because the luminance values are grouped in the left side of the histogram, as long as there are any white pixels on the picture. You can’t say that a cat is black if they can find one white hair on it, basically. But on the other hand, if you disagree with them about absolutely anything, essentially if your agreement with their ideology is less than the perfect 100%, you are a Nazi. That’s fundamentally intellectually dishonest; essentially, they are using logical fallacies and counting on the fact that most people are only vaguely familiar with logic, and they heard somewhere that you can disprove rules by citing exceptions, only they don’t understand that this doesn’t necessarily apply even in mathematics, because statistical analysis was developed exactly for the purpose of dealing with exceptions to rules. That’s why sociology uses statistics to formulate statements about human groups. Similarly to that picture, if some human group has a median value of 6 in 0..255 range, you can say it’s very “dark”. It’s basically how the biblical God saw Sodom. It’s the case where white pixels don’t disprove the rule, they prove it, because if you can basically count them all by hand, it says something.

The second thing that irritates me is citing your personal experience to disprove some general rule. It’s statistically worthless because it’s a sample of 1. Also, every substance addict I talked to used the same argument: I’m drinking alcohol or using drugs all the time and I’m feeling great. First of all, your subjective experience is most likely just your personal delusion – the consequences might just not have caught up with you. Second, even if it were not, you might be a severely abnormal specimen – for instance, some people are resistant to AIDS and never contract the disease because they have a genetic mutation that renders them immune. Third, it still isn’t necessarily a good idea. For instance, someone can say he was drunk and jumped from the hotel room on the second floor, landed in a pool and was fine. That doesn’t prove it’s a good idea. Rather, it proves that some people have more luck than one should reasonably expect. So, essentially, I shit on your personal experience.

The third thing is that some people think feeling is an argument. They feel something therefore it must be true, or I must at least accept that they are validated in their feeling-based opinion. That’s actually true in some cases, for instance if someone isn’t sexually attracted to you, that’s all the reason they need in order not to have sex with you. Asking them to provide evidence is actually a fallacy, because you assume evidence is needed. It is not. If someone doesn’t like you, they don’t need reasons to not like you. But this is an exception to the general rule. You can’t use this argument for medications, and say that a certain substance comes in an ugly box that you don’t like, and you’ll therefore not take it. You can’t say your school professor rubs you the wrong way and you therefore won’t accept his grades. You can’t say you don’t like police uniforms and you will therefore not obey the law. In most cases, your emotions are irrelevant and nobody should care about them. Your idiosyncrasies are your problem, and have no place in a discussion. If you think something is true, you need to be able to provide arguments in favor of your opinion. Feeling a certain way is not an argument. So, essentially, I shit on your feelings. If you have strong feelings in favor of a demonstrably false concept, it’s not evidence in favor of it, it’s evidence that you’re a fucked up person.

Manipulated markets and war

How can you tell a certain commodity market is being manipulated? It’s when supply is restricted, demand is enormous, and the prices are not rising. It means someone, usually the huge buyers, is influencing the markets by complicated and marginally legal means in order to keep the prices affordable for themselves. In my opinion, that’s what we have been seeing in the precious metals market in the last few months. The central banks and other big players have been buying unprecedented quantities, including the future production, and the prices have been dropping. I have a pretty good idea how some of it is being done, and even I am quite shocked at the amount of fuckery involved.

Also, we are approaching the upper limit of my prediction, because 3 months ago I said I expect the thing to blow up in the time interval of 15 days to 3 months. This was based on the expectation that the American stock market is in a hugely unstable bubble, that the central banks and other buyers will quickly exhaust the physical metal supply and this will in turn collapse the unbacked paper market, which worked thus far only because the bluff hadn’t been called. In the mean time, the fed has been printing money like crazy, and it’s been going into the American stock market, basically trying to prop it up in order to stabilize the house of cards. Also, overnight borrowing by the banks is huge, which indicates serious liquidity issues. In essence, the visible metal prices seem to invalidate my prognosis, but I think it’s just a matter of time before this house of card collapses, and I’m actually not in a great hurry to revise my time estimates, I think we’re still on the same schedule. I’ve seen very similar patterns in 2007. Marketplace was behaving contrary to the underlying realities seemingly disproving them, until it went poof.

I’m still buying silver with all the money I can spare each month, and I still recommend it to others. If the banks are buying metal instead of paper, contrary to their long-standing custom, it means paper is going to shit. Already, bets are being made on gold exceeding $4000 by summer of 2021. Some people say someone is betting high and will probably lose money. I say somebody is betting on a certain thing in a marketplace of asshats. A major constraint on my prognosis is that this time the financial collapse will be so big, it might cause the major players to pre-empt it with a nuclear war, seeing it as a preferable option. In fact, that’s what I’ve been warning about for years already; American intentional aggravation of the geopolitical situation makes no sense in any other context. Also, America is in the overture phase of a very nasty civil war for the last 3 years, with Obama-appointed people in the intelligence agencies acting as some sort of an insurgency that is trying to negate the results of the presidential elections, sabotage the executive branch of government, and, most importantly, control the media in order to propagandize their own populace. They actually revoked a law that used to prohibit that, so that everything would be legal.

When a significant part of a nation is refusing to accept the election results, using all kinds of excuses, that’s when you know the democratic system collapsed and the country descended into banana-republic stage. The level of political discourse in America is something I am used to seeing in African shitholes, but not in serious countries. It’s basically all at the point where the sides are so far apart in fundamental issues, they can no longer be said to belong to the same civilization, let alone nation. When this war gets hot, it’s going to be worse than Bosnia and Rwanda.

Feminism needs to go

The Western civilization has a reproductive problem. Bill Gates will tell you people in the West aren’t reproducing at a replacement rate or higher because they are economically developed, have excellent health care and all that, but I have a better explanation.

There are two reasons. First, they can’t afford to. Second, feminism.

The first reason is simple. Cost of living in a Western urban environment is so much higher than the historical parameters, it is simply unfeasible for a young couple to buy their own apartment or a house, pay all the bills and food, and raise a child. In order for them to be able to barely afford their own place, by rent or mortgage, they both have to work. If they both work, they can’t have children. So basically people in reproductive age are reduced to obligate wage-slavery until they are almost or fully past reproductive age. This is not conducive to reproduction, and thus the problem.

The second reason is more complicated, not because it’s really complicated, but because people are indoctrinated into assuming it without question. You see, we are being told that men and women are equal. If I tell you they are not, you will immediately come to all the hysterical conclusions you were indoctrinated to, but they really, really are not. Intellectually and emotionally they are different, but the differences are merely a combination of male and female traits that influence behavior, but those can be seen as equally good but different flavors of human. None of this is a problem, and if this were all there is, feminism would be fully justified in trying to pursue equality of sexes. Then there’s the physical difference. Women are significantly weaker than men. This disqualifies them from hard physical labor and jobs that require physical strength to either solve problems or avoid escalation of force, and if you try to pursue equality here, you will have serious problems. For instance, a male policeman can be selected to be physically imposing and strong, and he can solve most problems that require force with merely his presence, that will discourage disorderly and possibly drunk people from getting into even more trouble than they’re in already – basically, if you see a mean looking cop ordering you to stop a fight and go with him into the station, you are more likely to obey than if you’re facing a small, scrawny cop weaker than yourself, or a girl cop. It’s genetics. People, even drunk, can make very quick assessments of physical power based on what the opposition looks like. That’s what promoted survival in the past. People who made bad calls got killed. So, if you make female police officers, they won’t even be able to use batons successfully as a minor application of force, they will have to use guns. I have a hunch that’s why America had such a huge increase of police violence since women were made part of the force. They had to make safety-first rules of engagement, and they can’t rely on physical force to subdue disorderly people, they have to immediately escalate violence to the form a woman can successfully use, because they can’t have one set of rules for men and another for women, that wouldn’t pass. In the armed forces, the problems are similar: if you put women there, you basically have to change patterns of behavior of the entire armed forces, and not for the better. Contrary to what you’ve been told, diversity is not a strength, it’s a weakness. Unity is a strength. That is especially so in the armed forces. As for other physically demanding jobs, let’s get one thing straight. Those jobs are vanishing due to increased mechanization. There will be jobs that require a man’s strength, such as installing an AC unit on the roof, because most men can’t lift and successfully manipulate those, let alone women, and failure to do so will cause serious injury or death. However, a woman can use a front loader, fork lifter or a crane as well as a man. I would have to seriously think about the number of cases where my male strength advantage was really useful, in a sense that I couldn’t do something if I was female, and it’s mostly the extra height that was useful for grabbing things on shelves, and strength is mostly jar opening, which could be compensated for with a simple tool. In essence, humans didn’t get to be the top of the food chain because they were stronger than lions and tigers, but because they used tools. If the tools can give you an advantage over a lion or an elephant, they can surely compensate for the comparatively tiny difference in strength between human males and females. After all, with all the robotized factories in the future, the question is not whether men or women can better lift boxes, the question is who can write better code.

However, the real difference is reproduction, and that one is a deal breaker. Women bear children, they have the mammary glands necessary for feeding infants, and their child-bearing years are limited to young age, because they lose fertility exponentially as a function of time. For child-bearing, age is not “just a number”, and no, 40s aren’t the new 30s. With all the extension in human lifespan, the part that’s been extended is actually the old age; the reproductive age is biologically fixed and cannot be moved. Women have to have children before their 30s or they will have serious problems. That’s just how it is. Feminism tried to tell us it doesn’t matter, but it does, and because it matters we now face extinction, as a civilization, to be replaced by others who didn’t embrace feminism and all its ideas about how equality would be so wonderful it must be true. Something being wonderful or elegant doesn’t make it true. The Greeks had many elegant ideas about how the Universe works, and they were all false. Human equality is one of those ideas. However, unlike the concept of a geocentric Universe or everything being either a sphere or a circle because that would be mathematically most elegant, we as a civilization aren’t emotionally ready, or perhaps even mature enough to abandon equality. Personally, I have no problem with it. I have been surrounded by inequality for my entire life. There have always been people who could do something better than me – they could do sports, or play music, or something else I had no talent for. On the other hand, my thinking was so much better than an ordinary human’s, it’s not even funny. So, equality was never really something I gave much thought. Of course it doesn’t exist. What does exist, is that men are men, women are women, some people look better than others, some are smarter, some have additional skills, just accept it and deal with it in some acceptable manner. Have tall people, have them play basketball. Have smart people, let them solve difficult problems. Have strong people, have them install AC units or physically subdue rioters. That’s what civilization is about: not equality, but the ability to make things work for all kinds of people with their different traits. Not have too much diversity or everything will disintegrate, but have enough diversity so that there’s a place for warriors, poets, healers, priests and scientists. Don’t force everybody into a single mould, because if you try that, things get really nasty really quickly. One of those things that got nasty is the attempt to treat men and women equally.

Initially, we had separate educational systems for men and women. Then we simply erased the female-specific educational system, and shoe-horned women into the male-specific system, because feminism. This was followed by erasing every other female-specific thing in society and shoe-horning women into the male-specific version, and now apparently it’s time for female toilets to go, as well. Basically, what feminism consistently tried to do, since its inception, is to erase the female gender from existence. Feminism is a misnomer. It’s a movement that hates everything female about women and sees female emancipation as a removal of everything female. It consistently attempted to attain equality by erasing all inventions of civilization that were intended to accommodate for the specifics of the female gender and make things easier for women. And later, those revisions were made to seem like progress. In a few decades, removal of female bathrooms will be presented as a great victory against oppression and inequality. If you don’t think so, you underestimate the power of propaganda.

What we had before feminism is a society which was designed around gender differences, in order to accommodate for them and make everything work. This meant women got married young, they had babies in their fertile years, and their education was designed to accommodate for their femaleness. Today, this accommodation was removed, and we were indoctrinated to see it as progress. There are no female-specific schools today, only schools for boys that accept girls as well. Both sexes are intended to finish primary education, high school and college, and then enter the workforce. At 18, they are deemed too “immature” to have a family, and are expected to “settle down” first, by working into their 30s before even considering marriage and children. People who have children early are frowned upon. Women who marry early are frowned upon. There is strong social pressure mounted by feminists against women who decide not to play according to “female emancipation” rules designed to turn them into men with vaginas. “Housewife” is an immensely dirty and humiliating word today. Women who raise a family the way all women raised families before feminism are seen as “unemancipated”, meaning stupid, worthless, lazy, second-rate. Feminists strongly pressure women into obeying their narrative, because they know most women would choose against it if they were given a real choice. So, feminists deliberately made some choices unappealing. Women are encouraged in all ways to go against everything that created the Western civilization. And now, we are facing the consequence of extinction as a result. We will be replaced by Africans and Asians who don’t care about feminism and its nasty pecking order designed to humiliate “housewives” and extol the virtues of “successful women” with careers, trying to have their first child in her late 30s, or adopting. So, as much as feminists would try to tell you their activities resulted in nothing but great successes and victories for women, the truth is actually much nastier. The feminist path resulted in subversion of the foundations of our entire civilization, because if you attempt to eradicate differences between men and women, you basically attack history, culture, religion, and eventually science. You get women who are “emancipated” from raising their children by having to do menial work for strangers who are very seldom kind and generous, and the entire structure of civilization is modified to make it as difficult and as humiliating as possible for them to follow a traditional path. And those women are not happy, let me tell you that. They will give all the lip service to feminism and equality, but my wife tells me what they really think, behind closed doors, at the dance lessons she’s taking. Those “successful and emancipated” women in their 30s think their stellar careers just aren’t worth it, because they are reduced to trying to date someone when they should already be having their kids in high school, and they feel they’ve been screwed over, but they just didn’t think things through and understand that it was feminism that sold them a bullshit story. They were told that they will be emancipated by emulating men, because this story was invented by women who were either lesbian or transgender and always saw their emancipation in trying to be men. For normal women, however, this is far from being emancipatory. In fact, it’s the opposite. What’s emancipation for men – a successful career, for instance – means very little to a woman. Good luck trying to explain that to some lesbianic feminist who was checking whether she finally grew a penis well into her 20s.

So, we are faced with two choices. First, extinction of our civilization, and being replaced by Africans and Asians. Second, change things.

In order for us to change things we must first accept that they are now not working, and I feel this is where we have a problem, since it is quite likely that our entire population is so indoctrinated into believing that we’re doing things “properly”, that extinction might actually be more acceptable than admitting that we’ve been going in the wrong direction ever since the French revolution. Sure, it’s great for the economy to get two genders in the workforce for the price of one, but it was accomplished at the price of civilizational decay and collapse, and that’s not something I count as a success. Sure, women got to live in a feminist paradise, but they are statistically less happy the more feminism they get. I don’t count that as a success either.

The problem with feminism is that it is presented as an unequivocal success story for women, because it falsely claims credit for all the things that happened simultaneously with feminism, and also by painting a false picture of the situation that preceded feminism. As a result, it gives itself credit for things that have absolutely nothing to do with it, and, in a supremely deceptive sleight-of-hand, presents itself as savior of women.

So, let’s take a look at the things that happened simultaneously with feminism but are completely unrelated to it, and have contributed immensely to the well-being of women.

Microbial theory of disease, including vaccination, antibiotics and improvements in hygiene. Reduced mortality of women at childbirth and infant mortality by orders of magnitude. Absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

In-door plumbing. Nothing to do with feminism.

Electricity. Electric lighting, heating, appliances including iron, toaster, oven, microwave oven, dishwasher, washing machine, refrigeration, air conditioning. Nothing to do with feminism.

Petrochemical industry, including internal combustion engines. Improved transportation by orders of magnitude. Nothing to do with feminism.

Infrastructure, such as roads, railroads, shipping lanes, airports. Nothing to do with feminism.

Education. During the industrial revolution education greatly improved for both sexes, in direct correlation with additional wealth available. Primary education is obligatory in most countries. Nothing to do with feminism. The only thing feminism did was force girls into schools designed for boys.

Communication – telegraph, radio, TV, Internet, ability to have a mini-tablet with supercomputing power that’s connected to the global information network and everybody has it in their pocket. Nothing to do with feminism.

Advances in science – modern medical scanners such as NMRI, CT and PET, GPS network for geolocation, spaceflight enabling maintenance of a global satellite network. Nothing to do with feminism.

Voting rights – during the first world war, a general draft was introduced. Since all men were required to fight for their country, the idea was floated that limitations on voting rights should be lifted as well, according to the “no taxation without representation” principle. Essentially, if you get to be drafted into the military, you also get to vote. After that, it was “ok, let’s also give voting rights to women as well”. As hard as that might be for some to accept, voting rights for women also had nothing to do with feminism.

Basically, what feminism actually contributed to society is obligate participation of women in the workforce, because it reduced the price of labor by half so men alone now can’t financially support a family, at least in most cases. That’s what the feminist success story adds up to – it removed societal accommodations that made women’s lives easier, forced them to work outside the home and made it incredibly difficult for them to have a family. Feminism did almost as much to screw up women’s lives as Islam. At the same time, I struggle to find its single positive contribution, and as soon as I think I’ve found something, I think of the drawbacks. For instance, women weren’t allowed to do certain jobs, but then you stop to think why that was the case, and you understand that doing such a job properly would preclude being able to raise a family if you’re a woman. For instance, if something requires you to work all day, that’s fine if you’re a man, but if you’re a woman, who’s going to have children? Who’s going to raise them? Also, the often touted great GDP increase because of female participation in the workforce. Sounds great, until you realize how it’s calculated. If a woman is a “housewife”, her contributions aren’t calculated in the GDP. However, if she’s in the workforce, someone needs to watch her children while she works, so she needs a nanny, add nanny’s salary to the GDP. Kindergarten, add that to the GDP. She can’t tutor the kids if they have problems with maths, so add a tutor’s fee to the GDP. She can’t cook so she eats outside, add restaurant bill to the GDP. She can’t take care of the home so she hires a cleaner and a gardener, add that to the GDP. She also needs a car to go to work, so that’s more expenses that drive the economy. So basically she needs to work all day just to give all the earnings to all the people who get to live her life instead of her, and that’s supposedly emancipation. Yes, it is, if you always wanted to be a slave. Essentially, all those female contributions to the economy are self-cancelling and probably actually reduce the effectiveness of the civilization compared to what we would have without it, because don’t tell me that Saudi Arabia is the alternative to feminism. We didn’t have Saudi Arabia here in Europe before feminism. Before feminism, Victoria and Maria Theresa von Habsburg were the major politicians in Europe, Augusta Ada worked with Charles Babbage on his computer and in every case where it wasn’t awesome to be a woman, that’s because it wasn’t awesome to be human in general; no antibiotics, no vaccines, no electricity, no in-door plumbing, no cars, no communications, horse manure on the streets. Contrary to the claims of feminism, our Western civilization was never designed to oppress women. It was designed to accommodate for the differences between sexes and make everybody’s lives better. Sure, if you were a peasant woman, your life sucked, but so did life of your peasant husband. You died giving birth, he died behind a plough from heat and exhaustion. However, if you were a female member of the higher societal classes, your life was just as good as life of your male peers. Being a duchess was as awesome as being a duke. Remember, we’re not talking about Islamic countries. Islamic countries were always a shitty place to be a woman. We didn’t have Islam here in the west. In fact, we killed Muslims and it was a major point of pride here in Croatia. We killed Muslims so excellently, they didn’t get to invade the rest of Europe because of us. Killing Muslims was the main national sport. In Turkey, they probably still think we’re the worst people on Earth. 🙂 But that’s why our women had it so good here, and theirs got their clitoris cut off and/or got sold into slavery: there are civilizations that actually oppress women, and we successfully kept those out. Until women got the right to vote, and now they are voting to let them in, because compassion and emotions and shit.

So, now that I’m mostly done with diagnosis, I can prescribe therapy. Mind you, it can’t work while everybody thinks they are doing fine. However, we’re not doing fine, and eventually that will become clear to the majority, and then we need to be done with feminism and the feminists, and go back to where we were in the 19th century, and I don’t mean iron that uses hot coals, or horse carriages, or writing letters with goose feathers. I mean designing a civilization around the understanding that genders are different and that we need to make each gender’s life easier, in its respective role in life, while maintaining all the technological progress that we acquired. What that would look like, I don’t know. I can make a few recommendations, for instance education again needs to be gender-specific, but some things need to be common, for instance the languages, maths, science, rhetoric, philosophy, history, etc., but there need to be gender-specific subjects, like home-making, nutrition and pediatrics for girls, and survival training, shooting guns and martial arts for boys, so that they don’t turn faggots like they are today. Also, the society needs to accommodate for women’s child-bearing years, instead of forcing them into the workforce on the same schedule as men. Sure, I’d give everybody the option to do whatever, but guess what, if you made it possible for girls to have children between 18 and 25, and then return to college and enter the workforce if they want or financially need to do so, then by all means, have your careers, and you’ll actually be more successful because you won’t be biologically forced to leave the workforce in your 30s if you want to have children, or work and have children at the same time in which case your kids will turn completely fucked up. Introduce a concept of state-provided dowry for girls between 18 and 25 who want to get married and have children, instead of disrupting the workforce with the present concept of a maternity leave.

And that’s a feminist’s greatest fear: they know that they need to take that choice away from women, because if they don’t, it’s obvious what women would choose. Not all, of course, but a vast majority. Feminism needs to be understood for what it actually is: a worldview of lesbianic and transgendered women who actually want to be men, and is based on lies.