Imagine a boil on your right shoulder blade, on your back. It starts growing slowly. You can’t easily reach it, and for a while it doesn’t bother you. Later, after a few years, it suddenly grows rapidly and begins to hurt. You go for a check-up, and they tell you it requires surgery. You also find out that inside the boil there isn’t ordinary pus, but fluoroantimonic acid (HSbF₆), a substance so highly corrosive that contact with the skin is potentially lethal.
Nevertheless, you decide that having the surgery is too dangerous, even though all the information says it would be best to operate.
The boil continues to grow, but the pain remains minimal and life feels comfortable compared to the risk you imagine the operation might bring. Everything stays that way until one day you feel a sharp sting in the place of the boil. Then it passes. The next day the sting lasts 20 minutes and then passes again. The boil has burst. From this point on, things will progressively get worse, and it is not guaranteed that you will survive to tell the tale. Only now do you begin to realize that perhaps it would have been better to have the surgery in time. But a part of you still hopes that things will turn out fine and that it’s not the end of the world.
You are Civilization, and the boil is the misandry bubble that has just burst. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s the end of you as you know yourself. And you’re about to find out.
To paraphrase a classic, what you are about to read is the equivalent of someone telling you in 2007 about the madness of COVID-19. You won’t believe it. You will think it’s sci-fi. And you’re excused for your initial reaction. But this will happen. The correction on sexual politics is long overdue and it started somewhere in the post-pandemic period. Some say it’s 2024, others say it’s a bit earlier, but in the end, what it matters, is that it started. It will be a long and painful process.
A lot of you will be tempted to attack my person. But that’s okay too. I’ve been on the Internet for enough time to run out of fucks to give. But after you’re done calling me the most common 100 names reserved for those who don’t worship at the altar of gynocracy, please do consider that you are part of the problem. And in persisting to being wrong, you are harming the women you purport to defend. If you have a daughter that’s younger than 10, she will have to live through this. Try preparing her for it rather than stuff your fingers in your ears like Gen X fathers and mothers did and refused to defend their sons.
Chapter 1: Background story
Almost 20 years ago, yours truly was one of the no more than 1000 people on this Earth who was already thinking about this. The funny thing is that all of those people from those times (some of them still alive and still talking about this) ended up to nearly identical conclusions without knowing each other.
Over the years that followed, we got to know each other and got to do some good in an attempt to treat the misandry bubble without surgery. In the process we even got to build genuine friendships. Think of us as antibodies. But while we did get quite a few victories, in the final analysis we still failed. The misandry bubble still grew, albeit slower, and still burst. At best, we improved the lives of maybe one quarter of a generation of relatively functional men but, overall, we couldn’t stop the inevitable because Civilization (that is you) continued to steadfastly refuse to take any meaningful action to address misandry.
In January 2010, Imran Khan (not to be confused with the ex-PM of Pakistan) published an article called The Misandry Bubble. That article is no longer easily available on the Internet but copies of it can still be found[1] largely because it fascinated normalfags and the opposition enough to comment on it for over 15 years now. It didn’t get everything right (I remember the debates about the minutiae of it) but it got most things right. The opposition (henceforth known as “the mainstream”) calls it the foundation of “red pill ideology”/”manosphere” – which is false, but it’s also a lot less important in 2026.
Ernest Belfort Bax wrote The Fraud of Feminism in 1908 and The Legal Subjugation of Men in 1896. Imran Khan didn’t invent anything. Neither did yours truly or the hundreds of good people that worked from 2008 till 2018 to try to prevent this.
Still, Imran Khan starts with:
What you are about to read is the equivalent of someone in 1997 describing the expected forces governing the War on Terror from 2001-2009 in profound detail.
This is a very long article, the longest ever written on The Futurist. As it is a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife, it is not meant to be read in one shot but rather digested slowly over an extended period, with all supporting links read as well (if those links are still active after years pass). As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.
Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that has tainted the interaction between men and women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to make extremely unwise life choices, destructive to both themselves and others. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020. The primary culprits in perpetuating this injustice are not average women, but radical ‘feminists’ and an assortment of sinister, dishonest men who variously describe themselves as ‘male feminists’ or ‘social conservatives’.
The part in red turned out to be partially wrong. The primary culprits in perpetuating this injustice did in fact turn out to be the average women alongside the feminists (all of them, not just the “radical” ones) and the vast majority of so-called “social conservatives” whom I regard largely as worse than feminists for they don’t even see themselves as the enemy and can easily camouflage among innocent men. But we’ll get to that later.
And some of the predictions turned out to be understatements because the article was written in an Amero-centric fashion. To be fair, in 2010 it was still worth it. In 2010 the US was not yet utterly shit-tier culturally speaking. The slopification and enshitification hadn’t hit everything, although the signs were there already. And the disruption brought by smartphones was a lot harsher than even the most pessimistic thinkers believed at the time.
Still, by and large, the misandry bubble is a good enough approximation to the dominant thinking of “the manosphere” between 2007 and all the way till 2020 (a bit more or a bit less, depending on the thinker – the divergences started around 2016-17).
It’s interesting to note the end of Khan’s article too:
It remains to be seen which society can create economic prosperity while still making sure both genders are treated well, and the US is currently not on the right path in this regard. For this reason, I am less confident about a smooth deflation of the Misandry Bubble. Deflate it will, but it could be a turbulent hurricane. Only rural America can guide the rest of the nation into a more peaceful transition. Britain, however, may be beyond rescue.
Well, that turned out wrong. In fact, rural America today is even more misandrist and insane than it was in 2010. That’s why men leave it en masse. The overwhelming majority of American émigrés are from rural America. And the ones that stay? They are more likely to be transgender, theymabs, “goth girls” and all sorts of weird Tumblr characters in real life[2] than in the cities. Leftoids cope that this is because of economics. But it’s not. The economics of rural America are far better in 2026 than in 2010. What changed is misandry reaching its nadir. Men are opting out. You may not like it how they’re opting out, but, guess what? Nobody cares. Nobody asked for your approval just like you haven’t asked for anyone’s approval over the last 20 years when you refused to care about misandry.
Still, Imran Khan was correct when it comes to the United English Emirates. That place has less moral standing and less relevance today on the global stage than Pakistan. Heck, Pakistan is comparatively speaking a morally superiour nation at this point on everything from economic growth, military might, its treatment of men and increasingly in the level of societal liberalism. But that’s a story for another day.
In terms of action, many seriously believed in women’s good will. I can pride myself for not having been one of those – which is why I focused on agitprop and practical politics that bypasses mainstream (read: women’s) opinion and simply forces things. In the end, both approaches had some results and both in many ways failed.
Successes
Fathers’ rights: In 2007, exactly zero countries in Europe had rigid protections for fathers’ rights. In 2026, all countries of Europe have that. This is largely due to the relentless work of judicial activists (primarily in Germany – hats off to German MRAs, for real!) but also hundreds of other disparate activists who worked on a national level.
Zaunegger v. Germany (2009), Schneider v. Germany (2011) and Moog v. Germany (2016) have established permanent jurisprudence at the supranational level that:
- denying an unmarried father joint custody solely based on the mother’s lack of consent is illegal
- when determining custody, national courts cannot rely solely on a general legal presumption against unmarried fathers. Instead, they must conduct a “fair balancing of the rights of all persons involved” and examine the specific circumstances of the case
- suspension of a father’s contact rights for bureaucratic reason (the favorite tactic of misandrists) is in itself illegal
These had an effect. One by one, starting from 2008, countries of Europe started eliminating “protection of the mother” from their Civil/Family codes and slowly, by force, paved the way to a far more equitable family law and practice than our friends in the US have. Joint physical custody of children post-divorce more than doubled and the rate continues to grow as more and more fathers become aware that they do in fact have rights and don’t have to settle for being cucked by a social worker (always a woman) and the fake tears of the ex-wife.
Ironically, the push to get more women judges also drastically improved outcomes in this department because, ultimately, women see through other women’s bullshit.
There’s still a long way to go, but, ultimately, in every metric, fathers’ rights have improved significantly both in Europe and in the US. Again, thanks to smalltime litigators and targeted propagandists who never attracted the spotlight, the rate of joint physical custody of children increased in the US as well as “legal norms have shifted” – which is the preferred phrasing of the mainstream to avoid acknowledging that they’re being dragged kicking and screaming into not being misandrists.
In 2011-12, Republicans were calling us crazy when we advocated for the abolition of alimony (or at the very least lifetime alimony) because it’s fundamentally immoral and a tool of abuse by women against men. Fast forward to 2023, and some of the exact same people who were calling us crazy were drafting the bill and passing it.
Forcing the mask off: If you’re younger or you have only started following this more recently, you don’t know the amount of gaslighting we had to cut through.
In 2007, simply writing the word misandry led to questions of “what’s that?” including and especially from people who knew damn well what it was but had an interest in preventing the discussion from happening.
The spellcheckers didn’t recognize the word either. Simply discussing misandry was made purposefully difficult and no, it wasn’t an accident or an innocent oversight. It was all deliberate and women by and large approved it. We had to force that to change.
Similarly, discussing hypergamy went from pretending nobody knows what it is, to a far-right conspiracy theory, to far right misogyny and to present-day when it’s discussed openly in a women’s magazine as the oldest dating technique in the book[3]. Suddenly they all know what it is and it’s no longer a far right conspiracy theory or misogyny to discuss it. In fact, in women’s spaces it’s framed as a good thing.
The current discourse is the result of relentless targeted agitprop done by several thousands of people like me 10-15 years ago. You’re welcome! Now everyone speaks our language. 14 years ago the phrase becoming ambient was coined by Fidelbogen to describe how the non-feminist understanding of sexual politics will have to become the standard[4] to which everyone refers to. Well, that did happen. Only the purposefully ignorant don’t know about hypergamy in 2026. The dual mating strategy is now mainstream science discussion[5], rather than vilified discourse.
The fact that women lie not just more, but far more than men is something intelligent men knew since forever. But good luck saying that in 2005. By 2015, however, relentless pursuit of the truth forced a shocking mask off moment. Not only it suddenly become clear that this is indeed the case[6], and in multiple studies[7] making this one of the few social studies issue where the studies are in fact replicable (because women lie a lot and it’s impossible to ignore), but the response from the opposition was, and I kid you not: Women lie because they’re nicer[8].
If you think this level of arrogance and gaslighting has had no societal effect, I have a bridge in Malmö for sale for you. It’s a beautiful bridge, I promise.
Nearly all facets of sexual politics discourse in 2026 is the result of work by people like me and some of you reading from 2008 till 2017 or so. And that’s work I’m proud of. And you should too. The problem is that it was still not enough. Why? Because fundamentally women approve of all of these abuses. There is no good will to appeal to.
And this is because of another fundamental truth that is now mainstream knowledge but was a far right conspiracy theory 20 years go: by and large, ¾ of women have an in-group bias[9] and the rest have a slight bias. A quarter to 30% of men also have a female-favoring bias, most men have no bias at all and only 1% of men have an in-group bias[10].
To put it bluntly: women don’t hate men, they just don’t give a shit about men and will nearly always side with a woman no matter the facts or reality.
Civilization in the past knew these things, and that’s why it balanced things (or at least it tried, limitations and mistakes notwithstanding). The current iteration of civilization not only makes no attempt to limit women’s extremism, bias and excesses, but cheers them on relentlessly. And today only the willfully ignorant don’t know this.
Physical integrity and body autonomy of boys: In 2007, the boys raped by their female teachers owed child support to their strong independent rapists.
In 2026 that’s very rare and the fact that women routinely rape boys in schools is something even Karen moms are being aware of. That didn’t happen by magic. It happened through relentless pursuit of narrative-changing tactics and a decade of lawfare and lobbying.
In 2015, yours truly noted the slow but steady decline in the rate of genital mutilation of boys[11] and predicted that it will continue and will be a silent revolution. In the 11 years that have passed, millions of dollars have been poured into shilling to convince parents to mutilate their sons. But even so, sanity continues to prevail. A boy being born in 2026 has a far higher chance of not being mutilated than a boy born in 2007. And it’s getting better year by year everywhere – including in dar al Islam.
Just as I predicted, you don’t hear about this in mainstream news. And the reason is simple: nobody in power is happy that boys are no longer mutilated that often. And women in particular are quite unhappy about it. Why? Because it makes facial creams more expensive. You may not be aware but women’s beauty products are quite literally made out of baby boys’ foreskins[12]. Next time you hear a woman yapping about “ethical consumerism” ask her about her beauty products.
And again, if women’s good will were a thing, this would’ve stopped. But it didn’t. Because women don’t give a shit. They only give a shit when men stop producing. More on that later.
Similarly, on violence, discrete activists have succeeded in more than 100 countries to change the way statistics are collected which, in time, it has led to policy changes that finally target female criminals. Turns out women are absolutely not all sugar and spice and everything nice, but it can appear that way when you purposefully avoid collecting the evidence to the contrary.
From domestic violence, to human trafficking, to child abuse, enforcement, punishment and awareness has drastically improved in the last 20 years. That’s how we slowly learned that human traffickers are routinely women. Before 2010, convicted female human traffickers were 5% or less. Because quite literally nobody looked for women who run human trafficking operations. Now about 40% of convicted human traffickers are women. It’s still not where it should be (in reality the majority of human trafficking is done by women) but it’s tremendous progress.
Similarly, the world is finally figuring out that child abuse is a crime that actually does have a statistical sex. And that sex is female. And even with sexual abuse, as time goes on, the share of convicted females has gradually increased from under 5% to over 35% in some jurisdictions. Who knew? Once you actually look at things as they are and remove misandrist bias, you suddenly find out that women are people. They stink, rape, murder, fart, do human trafficking, engage in domestic violence and all sorts of nasty fucked up shit just like everyone else.
Speaking of domestic violence, this domain has improved the most, globally speaking. From basically zero awareness 20 years ago, to de facto institutionalized assumption in line with reality in almost all of the Northern Hemisphere and increasingly in the Southern one too (except Australia, but I refuse to believe that’s a real place).
For newer people, friendly reminder: Most domestic violence is reciprocal and among the cases where DV is unilateral, women are more likely to be the unilateral perpetrator.
Gutting feminist funding: This helped a lot. The reason anti-feminists today are basically mainstream is because they fight against an opposition that is no longer well-funded.
My country was the first in the world to enshrine International Men’s Day in law[13]. The reason I wanted that to happen wasn’t for the brownie points or for some meaningless celebration of men (the actual text of the law is hilarious). The reason I wanted that was so I can then use the well-established jurisprudence to force the reduction of funding for women’s causes to level of men’s: which is one nice zero.
You’d be surprised how happy the politicians were to do exactly that.
Now, looking back, it’s one of the things I’m immensely proud of.
Overall in Europe funding for feminists has been on a consistent decline over the last decade. Sometimes we were simply lucky, like with the European Commission in 2019 more or less accidentally changing a certain criterion for funding for social causes that ended up excluding the vast majority of feminist organizations in Europe.
The decline of interest overall (thanks to the mask-off moments discussed above and feminism becoming trash-coded) also led to a steady decline in funding. The Trump administration destroying USAID helped push this decline globally.
Suddenly, when the money ran out, feminists were forced to run on their determination. And, lo and behold, there’s very little of that. The reason feminists kept calling anti-feminists grifters is because nearly all feminists were and are in fact grifters. Very few of them actually believe what they say with the conviction that they purport. So they assumed the same is true for us. Suffice to say that was wrong.
Gutting female-favoring affirmative action (work in progress): It’s a lot better than in 2007, but, overall, clearly not enough progress has been achieved.
It still is the case that women quite literally live life on easy mode. Every step of the way throughout the entirety of their lives, women are given a leg-up. They used to be give two legs up, though.
Today it’s kosher to acknowledge even in shitlib fembot-friendly circles that institutionalized misandry has led to an entire generation of (especially white) men being out from entire professions[14] and that’s probably a bad thing. Of course, in those circles, it’s still the cucked phrasing and the appeal to calm. This is, of course, nonsense.
Unlike feminist fiction, the men who were harmed by institutionalized misandry have an actual enemy: the women who benefited and the men and women who implemented this. And, dare I say, the women and men who supported this too. Expecting all of them to just lay down and take it and not seek revenge is childish. They are seeking revenge. And I’m here to cheer them on.
Still, compared to 2007, the European Commission’s yapping about women on boards quite literally falls on deaf ears. In case you didn’t know, all countries of the EU had until
December 28, 2024, to transpose this cretinism[15], “aiming to improve gender balance in economic decision-making”. Did it happen? Well, not in practice, no.
One by one, countries basically pulled an Eastern Europe: they said they did it and then simply didn’t do it and never mentioned it again. More recently, unofficially, comrade Ursula von der Leyen was basically told by a coalition of right wing prime ministers that if she brings up feminist bullshit ever again she’s out of the job.
Sure, the bureaucracy continues to churn out policy paper and analysis, but nobody cares anymore. There’s zero implementation and the whole idea is treated like the joke it absolutely is.
Both in Europe and in the US we simply won on this outright. And with the cutting of the funding for the UN and WHO, our point of view is winning through sheer economics globally as well.
Self harm and lifestyle: Believe it or not, crazy people like yours truly ended up spreading ideas among young men that materially reduced the most serious issue: which is suicide.
Among young men, suicide rates dropped like a stone in Europe.
Mind you, it’s still 8-to-1 disparity overall. But it used to be much higher and most of the drop is due to young men no longer resorting to a permanent solution to a temporary problem. You won’t see this in a newspaper headline, of course.
As I’m writing this, the newspaper headlines are busy with two women in Netherlands and Spain that are getting voluntarily euthanized. That is the breaking news to make you angry. When in reality, those women already made their choices and have already led better lives than the men in their age and class bracket. In reality, the discussion should be nearly exclusive about how to reduce even further the suicide rate of men. Especially young men.
The reduction is “surprising” for normative materialist analysts because they genuinely can’t see men as human beings. For all “experts” men are economic utilities. They only give a fuck that young men are offing themselves because the line goes down in their stocks and GDP. They don’t give a fuck about the 60 year old man who offs himself. In fact, they’re glad when that happens because the line goes up in the budget (one less pension to pay).
In reality, the reduction is due to young men adopting ideas that are closer to reality rather than fiction.
Unfortunately, the opposite happened in the US because our American friends just love to be extremist. It also doesn’t help that the US has had such a long program of literally drugging boys into being retarded and that is also taking its toll.
There’s certainly a lot more to be done in this department but there are good news from allover the place. Japan, once the world’s suicide capital, now records the lowest levels in history[16] with the most spectacular fall being among men. The gap is now 2-to-1, one of the lowest in the world.
A lot of this is driven by fundamental changes in ideas and behaviors among men under the age of 50. And a lot of it is the result of the “gender war” even though nobody wants to talk about it because, well, it benefits men without benefiting women.
Perhaps the most fundamental change is men’s attitude towards “education”. Turns out that “education” is quite literally THE driver of teenage suicide. Young men viewing “education” with contempt (as they should) is quite literally saving lives.
Failures
Perhaps the biggest failure is in education. We failed (with very few exceptions) at stopping or even slow down misandry in education. But this is a blessing in disguise in a way. The more boys stopped regarding “education” with respect and started regarding it with the contempt it always deserved, the less boys killed themselves and the more they flourished outside of the system, from a mental health perspective.
It’s not all roses (we’ll get to that soon), but in the end this had to happen anyway.
Personally I regard public schooling as intentional institutional child abuse and I’m starting to negatively judge parents who put their children through that torment. But I’m an extremist so don’t mind me. I’m still right, but nobody is ready for that conversation yet. It took 20 years for enough people to be ready for the misandry conversation. It will take another decade at the very least until enough people are ready to take the red pill on “education”.
Another semi-failure was social media. Our strategy was far from great but, to be fair, almost all political projects struggled with an environment that rewards attention whoring, low quality bait and straight up brainrot. That’s how we ended up with a lot of antifeminist discourse being spread out by highly undesirable figures.
Be that as it may, cynically speaking, it was still better than expected. With the level of censorship on this topic that has plagued social media from 2015 till 2023, we still got a lot of breakthrough. Censorship resilient infrastructure (having our own websites) also helped a lot.
No goodwill. Although this was expected (at least by the more realistic of us), some still find it baffling or surprising that the level of goodwill for men not only didn’t increase, but in fact the level of casual misandry evolved inversely proportional to the level of institutional misandry.
That is to say, the less misandrist institutions became, the more misandrist the culture became. And that’s a nice way of saying women became more misandrist. I, for one, am not surprised by this at all and don’t consider this evolution as a failure (or a win). It’s just a logical fact of life.
Women already by and large don’t give a shit about men. When men actually start taking away their privileges, of course they’re going to chimp out. Because women and accountability are like Superman and kryptonite. The very notion is alien to the overwhelming majority of women. If you know this beforehand, none of this surprises you.
However, it does surprise the mainstream researchers because they never start from the correct premise. Mainstream researchers still peddle the lie that misandry is rare (even as they themselves are victims of institutionalized misandry and racism) and will not budge because admitting to being wrong is kryptonite for them too. And, up to a point, it’s also understandable. Because once they admit they’re wrong, then we can talk about their culpability in all of this.
Because, you see, this doesn’t stop until men win. And revenge is part of it. And at some level these cucks know it. You think Trump is harsh? See you in 15 years.
Chapter 2: Present day
Despite all of the above, young(er) men have decided that that’s just not enough.
In fact, young(er) men have more or less independently discovered that the most effective weapon is doing mostly nothing and wait.
This isn’t a shock either. It’s 5000+ years old wisdom that the best way to deal with evil from women is to ignore them. And what worked throughout history will necessarily work in the 21st century as well. Contrary to the luxury belief of socio-constructivism, human nature is pretty immutable. Some things may change around the edges, but over a span of 100 centuries or more.
The 2026 version of the attacks from the mainstream just fall on deaf ears at this point. Back in 2008, we’d respond. Now? Men simply do not care. And that, my friends, should terrify you. Especially if you have a daughter or you’re older than 40. Why? Because if men refuse to care for long enough, you will be affected.
The standard line that men are incel losers if they disagree with female privilege and appropriately recognize that this civilization is functionally misandrist and want nothing to do with it is simply false.
What the mainstream seriously doesn’t understand (or doesn’t want to understand because it’s afraid of the implications) is that once non-feminism broke containment, the spread was nearly 100% organic. As the graph above shows, the more young men interact with young women, the more anti-feminist they become and the less they swallow the lie.
Or, put it another way: The “red pill” is no longer being distributed and fed to men by podcasts, articles, pamphlets, picketing, protests or campaigns. The “red pill” is now being distributed by women through their behavior. Young(er) men see it, take notes and then compare. The podcasts are, at best, a medium to compare those notes. But by no means the most important one.
This didn’t happen in a vacuum. Men born after the year 2000 have basically been fucked 100% of their lives solely because they were born men. Sure, not all equally the same but there are zero men 26 and younger who haven’t been affected by this fundamentally misandrist civilization.
And men aren’t stupid. They have eyes and ears. And the fundamentals that were unavailable in 2005 are now one click away. It’s never been easier to find out why things are the way they are.
The fact of the matter is that every single female anywhere on Earth (yes, including in [insert fucked up place here]) lives better, longer and more fulfilling than the men in their equivalent social and economic class. And men notice this while they’re being told we’re striving for “equality” and at the same time every single feminine excess is cheered on and intentionally amplified all while every single masculine strength is intentionally suppressed, demonized and marginalized.
In common parlance, men aren’t permitted to win at all.
This wouldn’t be necessarily a problem. It’s not a huge tragedy that times are rougher and things get rearranged a bit. But it becomes a problem when this same misandrist civilization still has the audacity, the gall, to continue to expect men to do their “duty” as if it’s 1726, not 2026.
Nearly all political factions still want men to get married, have children and then work until they drop dead for the benefit of women and children and expect nothing in return. In fact, the expectation is for men to not only expect nothing, but objectively less than nothing and also be happy about it.
Is it any wonder that men refuse such a sweet deal?
Men have gradually learned how to pick and choose what they accept and apply to themselves which is, again, not surprising. Greater male variability is an absolute constant, much to the dismay of egalitarians, socio-constructivists, social conservatives and really all modern political factions with the exception of libertarians whose entire philosophy is built upon greater variability.
The graph above is quoted often as a “crisis” but also as a positive example of how stoic and stable men are while women are getting progressively crazier.
Now, sure, you can make that argument to some degree. Left-wing women are majority on psychotropic drugs and social media’s algorithmically driven enshitification is doing one hell of a number especially on young(er) women’s minds.
But that’s less interesting. What’s more interesting is that the kind of conservative man in 2026 is wholly different from the conservative man in 2005. Again: men have learned to pick and choose.
The young conservative man of today is post religious, less dogmatic, virulently antifeminist, usually tolerant with sexual deviancy (do keep in mind that Peter Thiel and the gay mafia are literally prominent right wingers now) and far more promiscuous ideologically. Looking at voting patterns and self-identification can be quite misleading, yet it’s a mistake nearly all analysts and observers are making.
Take for instance this picture:
This is from 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests. I betcha $100 that half of those guys are on the far-Right by now. And another 25% are somewhere between center-right and solid right, conventionally speaking.
Meanwhile, this is leftism in 2026:
Again, men aren’t stupid. And young(er) men, with no point of reference, aren’t going to dig up pictures from 15 years ago because they don’t care (why should they?) but instead just simply acknowledge a simple reality: Women care the most about importing the third world.
Women would rather import the third world than side with their men. This is demonstrable and consistent behavior of most women for the last decade. It’s even worse in Europe. Women overwhelmingly vote for parties who promise more mass immigration. And no amount of rhetoric and shaming will change this fact or stop men from noticing.
This is also, incidentally, why the social conservatives’ pitch falls flat as well. Social conservatives try to mobilize men to “defend our women”. Really nigga And what’s in it for men? And what did women do to earn such a privilege?
Women’s duties
The last time I heard the phrase women’s duties in real life was more than 15 years ago in a church context. And even then kinda sorta halfheartedly.
The reality is that men have the exact same duties as in 1926 while women have none of the duties of 1926 and in fact no duties at all to men or society.
In the past, men’s duty to work harder (risking death), defend the nation (risking death) and protect women (risking death) was offset by the fact that women bore children which was also an activity that carried a death risk.
In 2026, however, women don’t have children anymore. The Total Fertility Rate of 80% of the planet is under 2.1 and half of the planet is under 1 – something which would’ve been seen as a catastrophe 40 years ago while today we pretend it’s all good because the alternative would be to tell women to do their duty. The very notion of women’s duties has become haram. Basically everywhere.
The level of suppression of women’s duties is so extreme and so absurd that it’s laughable anyone still dares to doubt the validity of what I just wrote.
Not only women aren’t having children anymore, but women have murdered so many children in the last 50 years that it dwarfs all wars of all written human history combined. So much for the male desire for violence and blood lust.
When given the chance, women are far worse. So much worse that it’s ridiculous to even theoretically entertain the question which sex is more murderous. It’s women. Women would kill you in an instant over a petty inconvenience. The only reason they don’t do it is because they can’t.
Whenever women can inflict harm through violence – such as against children – they do it systemically and without remorse.
But even the so-called “pro lifers” aren’t willing to acknowledge this.
The problem is not (and was not) the legislation or the “lack of support” (often quoted by pseudo-liberals). No! The problem is, and always has been, that when you incentivize evil, you get more evil.
Again, this isn’t a rant about how women are inherently evil. This is a rant about how people are mostly shit and women are people. And when you have a “civilization” that purposefully and systematically encourages women’s excesses whilst simultaneously suppressing men’s strengths, the result can only be the graph above.
The benefit of all this is that nearly all men will soon be cured of any impression about “the empathetic gender”. Or at least the men under the age of 40 who matter a lot more from this point onwards.
Nothing against old men, mind you. But a civilization is as strong and as functional as its young men. It really is that simple. When young men want something, you better placate them. If you don’t, they will eventually get what they want anyway, but in a far less pleasant way.
“The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth”
The apocryphal African proverb is about to be felt globally. Not all at once, but slowly, it will hit everyone. Because it has to.
Analysts look at some African nations’ high TFR and relatively conservative laws and conclude they’re “fine”. Having been to quite a few of them, let me tell you something: they’re not fine at all, they’re just 15-20 years behind the curve.
Africa still has forced genital mutilation of all boys. What do African women do? Continue to enforce it while protesting to ban the circumcision of girls.
Just in March 2026, just in South Africa alone, 48 boys and young men died as a result of kidnapping and forced genital mutilation[17] and the news reporting doesn’t even call it that.
Translation: Even when men die as a result of barbaric practices socially enforced by women, you’re still not supposed to call it barbaric mutilation practice.
And you want men to have empathy for women? You have to be crazy at this point.
Btw, what are South African women up to these days? The BBC[18] a few months ago: “South Africa calls gender violence a national disaster after protests” and the article reads: “South Africa experiences some of the world’s highest levels of gender-based violence (GBV), with the rate at which women are killed five times higher than the global average, according to UN Women.”
Notice the framing. No mention that 90% of murder victims in South Africa are men. And that’s on top of those not classified as murder (such as those killed in the forced mutilation rituals). None of that matters. All that matters is women.
And again, the question is legitimate: What did contemporary women do positive for men or civilization to earn such level of disproportionate empathy? What duties do women fulfill that warrants such lopsided sex-based privilege?
A duty is defined by an action or set of actions that is/are:
- de facto mandatory (inescapable for 80%+)
- hard enough to have a fatality risk
- easy enough to fit the individual
- the fatality risk isn’t high enough to pose problems statistically to civilization OR the action(s) are so important that it’s overall worth it
Europe now has mandatory conscription for men again. With the exception of Norway, the only country that truly introduced universal conscription and explicitly told the feminists to pound sand with their silly protests, put their big girl pants and report for duty.
But except Norway (and Israel up to a point), what exactly are women’s duties to men or society? You don’t have to tell me. Ask yourself and be honest.
Men have the same sex-based duties and expectations as in 1926. What are women’s sex-based duties and expectations in 2026 that fit the criteria above?
Again: giving birth doesn’t count because most don’t do it anyway and birthing children has been made very safe (by men – and women’s response was to protest some more).
Speaking of healthcare, a lot of advancement came at the expense of literally killing men by administering dangerous experimental drugs to men first to figure out what works. Instead of “thank you” for your sacrifice and honour (and maybe some reparations for their families) women decided to protest that they were excluded from the trials. They still do, to this day, even though women rarely volunteer for the trials even when it’s open.
Perhaps this could be a duty for women: One drug trial per lifetime. Of the more dangerous fashion, not the Phase III easy mode. You think I’m harsh? See you in 20 years.
Lifestyle
It has always been the case that men’s social networks were smaller but they were also more stable. The Pandemic Project ruined the already fragile balance that existed.
In some countries (particularly the Angloid ones) socialization of any kind has been made impossible or extremely difficult (see loitering laws, hostile architecture, etc) thus further screwing over the young(er) men.
Yes, some of it is men’s fault too. Young(er) men are far more shut-in and terminally online than every other generation. Zoomers are by far the worst offenders (Alphas are actually better already).
However, that fault is utterly dwarfed by the fact that young(er) women are straight up crazy. And it’s further dwarfed by the fact that older women amplify a brainworm that effectively encourages young women (and men!) to actively avoid intergenerational socialization.
Zoomers’ beliefs about “age gaps” are so alien to the normative functioning of human society that they might as well be a different species at this point. And a lot of that is older women’s fault. If not primarily so.
It was always the case that some clubs, bars and other socialization venues had “ladies’ night” which were de facto women’s privilege of getting in for free with the owners’ idea that men would follow.
However, over the last decade, nearly all places do this shit while simultaneously becoming so feminine that not even a gay flamer would tolerate them. The social life didn’t become “more inclusive to women” but rather exclusive to women.
Even gay men weren’t spared the onslaught. Nude gay men’s social clubs were sued into oblivion[19] by women. And the judges agreed!
In 70% of the “western world” there are approximately zero men-only spaces because they’ve been rendered illegal.
And men are supposed to care about a few foids that are inconvenienced when transgenders fucks up their sport? Are you kidding me? I’m the biggest fan of transgenders precisely because they harm women-only spaces.
This should happen a lot more (and it will): women-only spaces should be relentlessly harassed with lawsuits, picketing, trolling, purposefully bad faith interpretation of policy and much more until they become mixed or they shut down.
In some places in the so-called civilized west, women sued their way into men’s locker rooms 50 years ago[20] and won. So why exactly should women be allowed everywhere by default while they get to keep their single sex spaces? Such level of immense privilege (for either sex!!!) is unheard of in the entire history of the human race. This shit ain’t sustainable.
And one immutable law in socio-economics says that what cannot go on, will not go on.
Most young men are single. Most young women are not[21] but you’re only allowed to discuss this by blaming men or by framing it as an increased risk of violence towards women (a risk that literally doesn’t exist – it’s all a lie). You are not however allowed to discuss women’s fault in all of this.
You are allowed (and in fact encouraged) to discuss the role of “men’s media” in the “crisis” but you are strongly discouraged to discuss the role of “women’s media” in this. And when you do, you get shamed for it. As a founder of the “I don’t give a flying fuck” school of thought, such shaming doesn’t work on me. But it did use to work on most men. Not so much anymore. Because the misandry bubble popped. You overdid it. You dished out too much for too long. Now be ready to take it.
In 2017, men having friends was unironically framed as both homosexual and a danger to women[22]. Young(er) men listened and took notes. Approximately zero women pushed back on that. The vast majority agreed and nodded along.
Sure, we can argue numbers but, you know what? I won’t, actually.
Perception is reality. And silence is consent. Isn’t that the standard progressive (read women’s) mantra? That if you don’t care about their minute marginal pet projects, then you are a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe fascist. Well, I’m all for gender equality so if you didn’t protest, you agreed with misandry and are personally at fault. I didn’t make the rules. I just got here.
Economics
Have you noticed that any discussion about the “gender pay gap” has mostly vanished?
It’s partially because the whole idea was debunked so many times that it became clown-coded to still peddle it. But it’s also because if you use the exact same measurement, young women in fact make more than men.
For a while, this was explained away by “higher female educational attainment” (read: ticking the right boxes in a system explicitly built to privilege female every step of the way). But the problem is that the phenomenon remains constant even as the “educated” positions are shrinking (government cuts, recession, DEI abolition, etc.) – so what gives?
In reality, the phenomenon is overwhelmingly due to one single factor: The persistent decline in employment prospects for young men. The phenomenon is now 20 years old and shows no sign of change.
Remember the in-group bias? Women hire other women, statistically speaking. Every time one tests this, the result is always the same: men’s hiring practices are far less biased and far more meritocratic by such a wide margin that it’s ridiculous we still allow women to make employment decisions. But we do, because telling women “NO” is haram.
Decades of DEI didn’t help. Neither did decades of mass immigration (a policy voted for by 2/3 of women or even more). There is no way to avoid the obvious conclusion: Women are at fault. By and large.
Smarter men went the self-employment route. Some however got hit there as well because even contracting comes with DEI conditions. You lose 5000 points by having the wrong chromosomes.
Again, smarter men adapted: some by legally changing their sex – very popular in Spain and Norway; some by moving the contracting company in their wife’s or mother’s name and some by hiding the ownership altogether via a blind trust.
The problem is, of course, that greater male variability means a substantial majority of men were simply locked out. Some permanently.
And since only 1% of men have a pro-male bias and ¾ of women have a pro-female bias, there is nobody left to care. There is zero empathy, let alone any willingness to help.
Men are adapting but neither women nor social conservatives will like how that adaptation looks like. More on that later.
Here I will only point this: The chronic lack of empathy was and is also doubled down by women’s audacity to continue to expect to marry men wealthier than themselves.
None of this would be a problem if women would bring something to the table. But, alas, they just don’t, statistically speaking.
What do women bring to the table, really?
Marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. And the current situation is… bleak to say the least.
Women initiate 70%+ of divorces in basically all countries suggesting, rationally, that this is part of women’s nature and not some artifact of law. Multiple attempts at explaining this away as somehow being men’s fault or that it’s simply women who happen to file even in mutually agreed separations don’t hold water.
Women’s collective behavior is nearly identical in Japan, the US, all of Europe, South Africa, Brazil or Qazaqstan.
Rightfully or wrongly, men read this and understand that women are fundamentally disloyal as a statistical norm. Good luck convincing them otherwise!
In the past, marriage came with some form of dowry and regular access to sex. Nowadays even the Church stopped discussing women’s duty in this regard. Puritanism for men, sexual liberation for women. Quite frankly, I am surprised that there is any man still getting married in 2026. It would be quite a shock if this pseudo-institution survives the turn of the next century.
“Men today work ten times as hard as their grandfathers to compete for women who are ten times worse than their grandmothers” is an exaggerated social media clickbait slogan, but the reason you likely heard it is because it does have a kernel of truth.
Less than 5% of women are virgins when they get married. 18% have had 10 or more partners before getting married.
Now, I’m not a social conservative so I don’t care about virginity that much. However, I do care about objective facts. And one objective fact is that one’s pair bonding abilities are permanently fucked from 5-6 partners upwards[23]. And the effect is worse on women too. This is, again, globally. It’s not about a certain country or “the West”. This is true everywhere.
Sexual “deviancy”
One heavily guarded truth that both smart social conservatives and smart “liberals” know is that the default is not heterosexuality. There are far more bisexual people than both strictly straight and strictly gay people. This has always been true. And it was always a challenge for civilization to try to minimize this.
Some civilizations allowed for exceptions (see Greece and ome), some outright accepted it as a fact of life (China until modernity), some preferred a level of ambiguity (see Taoism and Buddhism on this) and some tried to repress hard (Christianity and Islam). But they were all aware that you have to convince bisexual men to pair bond with women or else the civilization doesn’t continue.
As modernity rolled in, the Christian and Muslim attitudes became the global norm. But that’s a very new thing. And it’s already over.
We’ve seen some early evidence in post-genocide Rwanda and post-Stalin USSR. Relaxation of sexual mores (de facto at least) is quite common during times of crisis. But at the scale of history overall (again, globally), what we think as sexual mores is just a tiny blip. The default norm is a lot more liberal than you think.
The current status quo is also unique in history (and also uniquely unstable). We have total relaxation and tolerance for women and nearly zero tolerance for men. Heck, there are still countries where lesbianism is legal but homosexuality is not (see Jamaica or Belarus).
More broadly, it’s been widely known and acknowledged for decades that most women are somewhat bisexual. And it’s largely more tolerated too. For a while, this was doubled by the assumption that this phenomenon only or primarily exists in women while men are either straight or homosexual by and large. But fun fact: NO[24]
This turning is still in its early incipient form. You will see its full results in another decade or so. Once LGBTQIA++P² wokeness dies off entirely, we’ll also be able to collect better data.
For now, the data is tainted by the whole self-identification fiasco. Ironically (or not really) the LGBTQIA++P² wokeness acted as a tool of repression as well. No functional man would admit to being sometimes into other men (no pun intended) as long as the risk is to be associated with wokies.
But suffice to say the cat is out of the bag for men too. After being called gay for having a male friend or for preferring the company of exclusively men for a few hours a month, enough men stopped giving a shit and started exploring. Again, the phenomenon is still way in its infancy. But if you think that the future is gay (as some loony progressives think) or that the future is le based trad (as retards and social conservatives think or hope), I got bad news for both of y’all.
Let me put it this way: If you know more than 5 men, you already know at least one active bisexual man. He just never talks about it. And young(er) men have perfected the art of being discrete. It’s a lot easier to be discrete today than 50 years ago as long as you keep your mouth shut.
Again, in a context where pair bonding with women is made impossible, this matters a lot more than you dare to think.
If you’re bisexual, you lower your chance of divorcing by 10 percentage points, your chance of false accusations of DV by 80%+ and your chance of paying alimony by at least 50% (due to statistical income levels) all by using the bi part in bisexual.
Think about this statistically, not personally.
At least 37% of men have some homosexual experience between the beginning of adolescence and old age[25] and that’s very conservative data from 20 years ago. Also 20 years ago about 10% of men never sought marriage to begin with.
Are women ready to compete for men not just with other women but with men too?
Anti-human living
This is only partially women’s fault but the fact of the matter is that urban life has become straight up anti-human.
Our ancestors worked a lot less per year than the average man is required to work today[26]. Literal slaves worked less than the supposed well-off of today. Yes, the work was harder, yes, the risks were higher and, yes, life was shittier. But the fact remains that a man had almost 200 days per year (!!!) to reflect on things and of effective leisure time.
Young(er) men haven’t looked this up en masse, but have correctly sensed intuitively that the “traditional” path is actually not that traditional and also a lot less rewarding than it’s claimed.
Why exactly work for 9hrs/day for 250 days a year or more (which is almost double than medieval peasants in the 14th century)? You can get the lifestyle of 14th century kings with a lot less work than that.
The reason memes like this exist is because they’re fundamentally true. Heck, even the beer is not required (Zoomers don’t drink anyway).
Cigarettes (or weed), food, entertainment, electricity, Internet and heat. That’s already way above what a Prince was getting in the 14th century.
Even in the developing countries it’s now feasible to achieve that by working less than 200 days a year and have a level of flexibility higher than medieval peasants.
Economists and social conservatives go full rage mode when I talk about this but it doesn’t matter anymore and it will matter even less in the next 20 years.
Every single organization on Earth has suddenly found out that Zoomers (of any nation) are simply unwilling to work as much as older people and they don’t give a shit how much you threaten them or caution them. Especially the men. They simply won’t work more and that’s it. Go ahead and fire them. Eventually you’ll hire another Zoomer who will work just as little if not even less so.
This is one aspect where Zoomers collectively are absolutely correct.
There is no rational reason to work so much. Work for what? So the line goes up? Why?
Companies have stopped being loyal to their employees decades ago and since most young men are single, what is the incentive to work so hard?
And, over the last 10 years, young(er) men have had time to build up wisdom. Some have tried countryside lifestyle but, as predicted, very few survived (you should’ve listened to us oldfarts on that one, kiddos). But, in the face of failure, they dusted off and started carefully optimizing for the best of both worlds: the work schedule of a 14th century peasant but with maximum modernity benefits.
And it works! Because consoomer spending is in fact women. 80%+ of consumer spending is decided by women. Without women in their lives, suddenly men not only can afford stuff, but they can afford to save up or to actually enjoy their youth for a change something which young men haven’t gotten to do for over a century now.
Also, even if one does it “right”, it’s still not worth it. You see her 2hrs/day and in the week-end you’re both too tired to do anything fun and worth doing. Historically, this is not just abnormal, but absurd.
The cities as we know them today, with the insane working schedules, will be a thing of the past by the middle of the century. The cities will survive, but the way they function today will suffer fundamental changes.
Feminine socialism
Probably this belonged in the economics subchapter but it deserves separate mention.
This “civilization” has become so utterly unbalanced that it’s comical to meet someone in the wild who claims to be knowledgeable and yet so utterly in denial about this.
Put bluntly: As a group, only men pay taxes. And this is true in virtually all countries on Earth. What differs is the gap and the incentive structures which leads to different trade-off assessments. In Qazaqstan men deem this appropriate because in return they get 3+ children per woman, authority and an opportunity to enjoy their youth (by having Babushka raise the kids).
The graph above could be about any country. This one in particular is about
New Zealand[27] but the proportions are shockingly similar no matter which country you dare to look.
From Norway to Pakistan and from Japan to the US and really any country, the graph looks nearly identical. Some countries obfuscate the data under a mountain of legalese and coding but I challenge anyone to find me a first or second world country in which women pay into the system as much as men.
This reality is often excused by the fact that women consume more health resources and that’s somehow excused because of their reproductive system. But we already established that women don’t have children anymore. Every TFR graph can show you that.
So why exactly is it still acceptable? And the answer is misandry. Straight up to exploitation levels.
The balance is broken. And now men have noticed. It’s only getting downhill from here.
This “civilization” is now just one giant exploitative mechanism of all men for the explicit benefit of all women but without any balance. Men don’t just get nothing but get less than nothing out of this degenerate, insane, extremist, unjust and immoral arrangement.
And it’s no longer just the extremist Sofa man who notices this. Over the last year, a lot more people have started to notice.
Last year in the kosher angloidosphere Helen Andrews made waves with her essay The Great Feminization[28] which is really just a “manosphere” article from 2019.
In 2010-11, writers for the European Conservative found the time to call me crazy when I said on one of my podcasts that Iceland is a mental asylum and the first full misandrist society. I was hosting with an Icelandic man (Jon, if you’re reading this, I hope you’re doing fine!). Well well well,… guess who wrote this headline: “Feminism and Idiocracy: Iceland as the Canary in the Coal Mine”? Exactly the same publication[29] which needed a grand total of over 15 years to reach the conclusion a Romanian dude and a half Icelandic dude needed one hour to reach to in a BlogTalkRadio podcast.
That doesn’t say much about how smart my cohost and yours truly were. But it does say a lot about how stupid most “analysts” really are. Stupid or bad people. It doesn’t even matter at this point, really.
Men, as a group, not only gave everything to women as a group. But gave more than everything. Literally the entire civilization at this point exists to pamper women as a group for literally no benefit whatsoever for men. You should be thankful that men are not the violent brutish beasts the mainstream has been portraying them for 100% of my lifetime.
The fact that the majority of men are still willing to work for this “civilization” speaks volumes about the kindness of men. But that resource is about to be exhausted.
And from here on, the not-so-fun part begins. It will get far worse before it gets better, but I, for one, will enjoy every second of it.
The anti-fun world
The reason the not-so-fun part will be largely tolerated by young(er) men is because the current world is already anti-fun. And is being purposefully made even less fun and worth respecting every day largely by women and misandrist politicians.
The reason my generation turned permanently against organized religion (and to this day maintains default distrust in the vast majority of social conservatism) was because the social conservatives tried really hard to take away our fun in the 1990s.
Well, what do you think the current 12 year olds will believe about you as you’re using your larger demographics to crack down on teenage fun?
Indonesia[30], the United Kingdom[31] and Austria[32] have begun cracking down on teenage fun just in the last week of March of 2026 as I’m writing this article. Ironically (or, again, maybe not) the only country in Europe to openly refuse hopping onto this bandwagon is my own[33] and largely because upsetting President Trump is really a bad idea but also because the current leadership is mostly my generation. They hate this shit too, although they’d never admit it in public (they do admit it over a cigarette though).
To these add up France, Australia (though I refuse to think that place is real), Spain, Norway, Portugal, Brazil, Malaysia and Denmark. And that’s just until now. More will follow.
It just so happens that I actually agree with some of these laws. But, these kinds of laws can only work if you already have a functional civilization.
Alas... we don’t. So in practice a lot (though not all) of these laws will end up creating even more radicalized teens.
You already destroyed social life by making cities antihuman and with 50+ years of misandry and now you’re cracking down on fun as well. There is no timeline in which this doesn’t result in more extremism (the real kind, not the scare-quotes kind).
Chapter 3: The horizon of 2050: Cyberpunk with 1750s elements
I am fully aware that making predictions over a period larger than 10 years drastically increases the chances of getting it wrong.
But I am also equally aware that human nature is immutable and predicting how humans react when incentives shift is surprisingly easy, albeit uncomfortable for the faint of heart. And after 25 years of practical politics, I dare to believe that I can predict bureaucracies reasonably well.
Also, not being a technooptimist increases my chances of getting this right.
The artificial wombs, the gigarealistic VR porn or the gigarealistic sex bots… those may not come even by 2050. And there is no guarantee that men would like them even if the products get really good.
Changes in technology will occur, but their impact on sexual politics won’t be as pronounced as technooptimists like to think. Also, the pace of wonderful changes has already slowed down significantly and will continue to slow down, thus crashing nearly all technooptimist dreams.
The reason for that is also feminization. Everyone forgets that meaningful tech is 99%+ men. And not just any men, but a specific typology of men who tend to be veeeeery sensitive to unfairness. Once that balance got broken (it happened between 2010 and 2014), things became unstable. In 2026 the quality of tech is objectively worse than in 2014. Even hardware has been stagnating. Engineering is worse, software is worse and the enshitification and slopification will only accelerate.
2026-2030 – inertia picks up pace
For those not paying attention, it will seem that things are still kinda sorta working. And, in a way, they’ll be right. It will just slightly get worse, but not noticeable for the vast majority of the population. Demographic inertia is still strong enough to mask the dark clouds gathering.
Less work
Men will continue to work less and less. Unless a global government emerges that tries to force slavery at gunpoint, nothing will work to get men back on the plantation to 2010 levels.
The current trends show no reason why they should change.
The less men work, the less there is to tax, the less there is to redistribute to women, which leads to less consumer spending which leads to recession and stagflation. Yes, both at once, because governments will try to offset this through inflation. 2030 is too early to get any meaningful government to outright cut women’s benefits and call it a good thing. It won’t happen, even though it’s necessary. In fact it was necessary 20 years ago, but I digress.
Again, men can live perfectly fine in a single room apartment. And men are better at managing loneliness than women. They don’t like it, but they can manage it. Especially if there’s a goal in mind. And what better goal can it be than fundamentally resetting this dogshit “civilization”? All by simply doing nothing. Feel free to think I’m joking. But I’m not.
Ignoring women is by far the most potent weapon. And the more time goes on from the death of the “romantic love” propaganda era, the easiest it gets to wield it.
A lot less empathy
Much to my joy, young(er) men resemble me a lot more. Not in overall empathy (and you should be grateful for that) but specifically in empathy and giving a shit about women.
10 years ago proudly proclaiming that you don’t give a shit that some foid got stomped by diversity and inclusion (for which she voted) was a radical and extremist statement. Today it’s simply normal for men under the age of 35.
Heck, even the “extremist” men who peddle the “our women” message do in fact get wives from the third world and in practice they crap collectively on the women of their own nations.
Instinctively, at this point, men already know that “their women” deserve exactly the same level of empathy that the women have shown to men in the last 40 years: which is not nothing but explicitly less than nothing.
This is a very good thing. Lowering the level of collective empathy and sympathy awarded to women by at least 90% is an absolutely necessary step towards the moral progress of civilization.
The reason is logistical. It is not possible even in 5000 years to raise the level of empathy and sympathy for men to the level currently awarded to women. Two reasons for that:
- Women’s in-group bias means you always have an outright majority that explicitly doesn’t give a shit about men as a group
- Even if somehow #1 would be overcome, empathy is a limited resource (contrary to idealists’ beliefs). And we are already overspending that limited resource entirely on women. We’re collectively out of fucks to give.
However, drastically lowering the level of empathy and sympathy awarded to women is not just possible, but very likely in less than 15 years. The process has already started. And there is no reason to think it won’t accelerate.
A few days ago left-winger Richard Reeves from the American Institute for Boys and Men reminded everyone just how important it is to maintain the lie that you can improve the lot of men while maintaining women’s privilege. “Gender progress isn’t zero sum” he proclaimed[34] at some podcast zero young men listen or care about.
There’s just one problem: This is a lie.
“Gender progress” absolutely is zero-sum. There’s only so much empathy to go around. There’s only so much taxable income. There’s only so many resources to go around. When 90%+ of that goes only to women, the only way to fix that is, yes, by taking from women.
More patchwork
Governments are already scared that they won’t be able to pay out pensions. Most nations on Earth still have lower retirement ages for women – which in itself shows just how misandrist this “civilization” is.
It’s not enough that women don’t pay taxes and consume so much that the life expectancy gap increased, but they also retire earlier. The average man enjoys 5 to 7 years of retirement. The average woman at least 14 years. This cannot go on. The public pensions systems are already broke. And countries haven’t equalized things fast enough.
A truly fair system would have women retire at age 74 and men retire at age 65. We either aim for that or for the abolition of the pension system altogether. I’m a big fan of the latter.
At this point the European Parliament can still afford to be silly like this.
The 2029 elections will be so much fun. All of this silliness will give way to slightly panicked discourse about how will anyone get a pension.
And by the way, for the record, women do not deserve better. In fact, they already get far more than they deserve. By 2030 this will be mainstream discourse. You can’t fool mathematics forever. Especially not if the golden goose (that would be men) has stopped laying eggs.
Globally, more countries will try various schemes with a view to bring some men back on the marriage and “economy” plantation. Lump sums for marriage, lump sums for first/second child, and so on.
As explained on the Sofa[35] none of that shit works. Natal socialism is still socialism. And socialism doesn’t work.
Still, the patching attempts will continue throughout this decade. It’s politically expedient and most politicians won’t be alive to see the outcomes.
Donald Trump is 80, Narendra Modi is 76, Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Tusk are 68, Lula da Silva is 81, Xi Jinping is 73, vladimir putin is unfortunately still alive and is 74. They all have ideas about growing fertility and balancing the budget. None of them will be alive to see how they failed.
Acceleration of mainstream disintegration
By 2030, elections will be fought on entirely different rules from now. They haven’t been written yet.
But the mainstream is dead. And by 2030 we will slowly find the decency to sign its death certificate and welcome cultural Balkanization. I don’t care how you feel about this, but it’s a foregone conclusion.
Maybe the mainstream can limp around till 2032 or whatever. But the days of a mainstream are already numbered. In most countries there will be no mainstream by the end of this year. In several dozens the mainstream officially died 2 years ago.
This will make propaganda harder (for all factions) and conflict more likely. But only in appearance. It will appear so that conflict is more likely. In reality, there won’t be one. Because to fight a conflict you need men. Young men. Lots of them. But women aborted them by the tens of millions long time ago, drugged up the survivors and those who remain unscathed are smart enough not to join any conflict. So the fun can begin.
Looksmaxxing
If you think the looksmaxxing brainworm that the younger zoomers and oldest gen Alphas have is gay and cringe, be prepared for a lot more of it.
To quote one of our esteemed members, looksmaxing and aesthetics are to impress other men mostly, even if it’s under the umbrella of “being in trend” or “being better than the others”, it still functions on the male gaze appreciation. And even here, women are the third wheel, as they appreciate what other men appreciate.
The extension of this is already baked into the cake. The chance of me getting this one wrong is basically zero.
There is already some cope being built up by regime shills once they can no longer shame this. They will claim it’s normal because advanced civilizations do become more feminine and it’s thus evidence of that. Of course, that’ll be absurd (like nearly all regime claims on sexual politics) but when has the truth been an impediment?
In reality it’s neither a sign of advancement nor of decay. It’s a sign of enough men taking a sidestep.
Again: none of this has to be a majority phenomenon. It’s enough if 20% of young(er) men do it and refuse to budge or compromise. And that figure will be reached a lot sooner than you think. And once men figure it out that it’s fun to spend money on themselves, there be dragons.
The Regime counter-attacks
Both the “liberals” and the “social conservatives” will intensify their misandry in a desperate attempt to prevent the inevitable. The “conservatives” will frame it as a “national emergency” (or some similar shit) to try to get women’s buy-in for some lipstick-on-a-pig policies.
The “liberals” meanwhile will do what they’ve always done: Pour in millions into misandrist propaganda. It’s already happening and it will intensify.
Both the “liberals” and the “conservatives” will hone-in on the same old trite messaging that gets their line to go up: Men have to work until they die because it’s their duty and foids suffer if they don’t.
Neither “liberals” nor “conservatives” will dare before 2030 to blame women for anything. This is because of generational inertia. The leadership is still very old, and this is particularly true in the mainstream think tanks that are allowed to dabble in sexual politics with the explicit purpose of gatekeeping the truth.
Just the people I quoted so far: Sheryl Sandberg is 56, Brad Wilcox is 56, Richard Reeves is 57. I’m sure it’s a pure coincidence they’re all born in the same two years.
What I’m sure it’s not a coincidence is that while they purportedly disagree with each other, none of them dare to blame women and all of them are “concerned” that men are no longer willing to work themselves into an early grave.
All of this will fall on deaf ears, of course. There is simply no reason for any man to take any of these people seriously. Or any of the people of similar caliber.
I am sure that at some point Elon Musk (what a coincidence, also age 55, same generation) will try to fund some of these people for his obsession with birth rates. I suspect some of that is already happening but can’t prove it. This will fail just like Sheryl Sandberg’s Facebook-funded campaign failed too. Her “Lean In” campaign ended with more women leaning out.
2030-2035 – prolonged recession, chaos becomes apparent
In a lot of countries with a public pension system, 2030-to-2035 is the critical period. And there is no solution to it.
Once the larger generations start collecting pensions, the whole project collapses. Because, you see, pensions are paid from the money collected from current taxpayers.
Well, it just so happens that there are far fewer taxpayers. Especially of the useful ones – that is to say men.
Good luck paying the pensions from the “contributions” paid by the HR girlbosses, state employees, “healthcare” and other overwhelmingly useless leeches. It will work out just fine.
Governments will start panicking for real and will try everything. There will be scheduled Internet blackouts (like in russia or Iran today), various forms of Martial Law/State of Emergency and the “official” propaganda will be cranked up to levels that will make Cough19 look like a Thai massage.
The problem is, of course, that the horse is already dead. By that time, the covid kids will be mature and will want nothing to do with the “civilization” that robbed their childhoods and permanently handicapped their adult lives. And governments will want them to work more and cede more of their income in order to support old people (who are at fault for the covid madness) and women (who are at fault for the whole problem anyway). Yes, I’m sure the argument will go down really well. NOT.
Some governments will try to do hard resets (snap elections, sham coup d’etats, maybe a staged revolution), none of that will convince enough people though. And especially will not convince enough men.
Over time, the revolutionary movements have become 70%+ feminine. Nobody buys into a revolution made by a bunch of Karens, sorry.
Other governments may end up being toppled for real. In some countries there will be young men who will take their shot at power through sheer violence and bruteforce. Those will be countries worth watching. Because those will form the template for the future. We’ve seen some of that in Nepal and Madagascar (and to a lesser extent Indonesia). But get ready for a lot more!
2035 won’t be 1935. The men of 2035 won’t dream of eternal glory for the Fatherland or some shit. No, they will want revenge. It will resemble 1789 quite a bit more than 1776.
But outside of politics and macroeconomics, the real tragedies will be social for women.
Dating
As recession deepens, the dating dynamics will suffer an abrupt shift.
Homosexual behavior will be far more prevalent than today. Whether it will be out in the open or discrete will depend on the country. But everyone will know.
By 2035 the whole “I identify as” bullshit will have completely died off. But the practices will in fact increase.
What you’re forced today to call a “trans woman” will be just another femboy body moder. Welcome to globalized Thailand. Or globalized Korea (look up the plastic surgery industry there if you want a glimpse into the future).
What you call today a “gay man” will be assimilated into a default bisexual assumption.
This will further impact fertility. Each of this doesn’t seem important. But once you add them up with the terminally online thought patterns, chronic lack of socialization and other “ills” then suddenly the tableau looks grim if you care about population numbers or any of the current obsessions.
At worst, this will take all the way till 2040, but it will happen. Demographic crises always bring this up and there is zero reason to believe contemporary humans will defy the historical norm.
This will affect women in multiple ways. At first it will be an STD bomb but then slowly it will mean a de facto pressure against whoredom.
With perpetual recession, “healthcare” will be cut. And women won’t afford to pay for it. So you either whore out and risk dying from an STD (probably super gonorrhea or some shit) or you learn to be a good girl and don’t whore out.
Sure, not everywhere and not all at once. All of this will be gradual.
Going with the analogy from the introduction, the acidic pus from the boil is slowly leaking out and slowly burning everything in its way. It’s death by a 100,000 cuts.
Women say they can adapt to this because they have “each other” – but real life examples show that, on aggregate, that’s simply a lie (remember: as a group, women lie a lot more and as an absolute norm). In post-genocide
Rwanda women didn’t collectively become lesbian separatists. But harshly competed against each other ruthlessly for a husband and started popping out kids as fast and as many as they could. And it wasn’t religion that convinced them (despite what religious propaganda claims).
Radical shift in working patterns
Places that swallowed the “digitalization” stupidity will rapidly rediscover physical money and generalized tax evasion. Being legally and “meaningfully” employed will become the exception (as in most of history) and employees’ “rights” will become a joke.
Technooptimists predicted lots of useless people because of tech. Well, yeah, but those useless people won’t be men.
There will be no generalized automated and autonomous trucks by 2035. Or automated and autonomous builders, electricians (1.8% women), plumbers, pipefitters, steamfitters, carpenters or machinists. But there will be automated doctors. And automated secretaries. And automated HR. And automated customer service.
“Childcare” will shrink to the size of the 1750s. A niche sector for the ultra rich. Everyone else will stop paying for that and all the jobs (94% women) will be abolished more or less overnight.
Outright famine won’t happen just yet. But routine failure of infrastructure will be the norm. Because the men who maintain them have stopped giving a shit a long time ago. They took their increased income, invested in something like food production and retired at 45.
Being an electrician will be in top 10 best paid jobs. Being a senior IT specialist will be a joke. Who gives a shit about IT specialists when there’s no consistent electricity?
Europe in particular will be hit very hard by this. Because half of the continent never lived under real hardship. Let’s remember the shitshow in Spain and Portugal last year when the power went down for just 24 hours. People died, millions couldn’t buy food because none of them had cash and it took France and Morocco to help out.
Now imagine that in all of Europe happening basically twice a week. Given that the transport infrastructure is shit-tier now, in 2026, and there are no money earmarked to upgrade it, it’s a matter of time until things go crazy.
This “civilization” will start paying the price by 2035 for severely undervaluing its most useful people – men who build and maintain infrastructure in order to severely overvalue the most useless people in existence – which is HR women, teachers and secretaries.
We don’t need no education
If you think “education” as we know it today will still be around by 2035 I have a bridge to sell to you.
The rapid demographic decrease and demographic shifts will necessary force reforms downwards. “Teachers” will be fired, schools will be permanently shut down and whatever survives will have to fight for pupils who are explicitly taught at home to despise their teachers.
There is no going back from this. The nadir of “education” was in 2005. It’s only been downhill from then. And by 2035 or 2040 (depending on the country) the experiment will be unceremoniously abolished.
It won’t be called like that, mind you. Heck, most people won’t even know. It will be a very quiet thing. One school here, one school there, suddenly a funding shortage, suddenly an “emergency” that requires 3-4 months of school shutdown…. governments will figure out ways to kick the can down the road and avoid creating another huge scandal.
But, if you’re under 20 and reading this, you’re smart enough not to become a public school teacher. If you have children, you’re smart enough not to allow them to become public school teachers.
Also, if you’re really smart, you don’t send your children to college. By 2035 it will be a net negative on one’s resume. This is slowly happening now. In another decade the college bubble will also burst.
Unless you’re poised to be a top 1% specialist in something really complicated and niche, you shouldn’t go to college. If your kid(s) aren’t some turboautists poised to make the next great discovery in real science, you shouldn’t send them to college.
Of course, most of you won’t listen. Because people never learn the easy way. Always the hard way.
If people were capable of learning the easy way, this article wouldn’t have existed because we would’ve fixed the misandry problem by 2020 at the latest. Alas, we didn’t. Because serving women was deemed more important than preserving a functional civilization.
Women’s economics
This part will be the funniest, for sure.
For now women cope with being utter failures by joining terrorist regimes like
Iran.
But the problem is that the Islamic Republic has the exact same problems as Europe, the US, Japan or China.
Le based trad Iran has a total fertility rate of 1.5 and rising singlehood. What you have to understand is that nobody is spared from this.
You wanted globalization? Well, now it’s time to pay the price for it.
Whether you’re in Iran, Lebanon, China, the United States, France, russia, Nigeria (btw, the civilized parts of Nigeria already have TFR under 2.1 today), Brazil or Thailand… it really won’t matter. It’s only a matter of 5-6 years delay until this hits your corner of the world. Maybe your country is behind the curve enough for you to avoid this if you’re over the age 40. Maybe.
But, to paraphrase Calla Walsh’s favorite thinker, Vladimir Lenin, there are weeks where decades happen. Nobody expected the toppling of Ceaușescu or the toppling of Nazarbayev or the toppling of Hosni Mubarak. But they did happen. Because young men wanted so.
Underestimate young men at your own peril!
Young women will follow. Or else they can enjoy starvation.
While women are far more blood thirsty than men (as evidenced by women’s collective behavior in the last 50 years), the fact of the matter is that their ability to inflict violence is still limited. A 15 year old boy is still far stronger and capable of violence than even top 1% strongest women.
The countries with no capital to burn will suffer first.
For a while this will not be noticeable due to the plebs being glued to their screens and governments doing everything they can to prevent real news from being consumed. But, of course, you can’t hide this forever.
Abortion restrictions
A few places in the world will start to tout more abortion restrictions. Even fewer will actually implement them and none will be serious about enforcement. Why? Because 2035 is still not enough to convince policy makers to start saying “NO” to women.
You don’t have to go full Ceaușescu or full Handmaid’s Tale to have an effective abortion ban. You just have to make it rewarding to tell women “NO” and very costly to say “Yes”.
2035 is still too soon for anyone to think of an effective policy. Death penalty for abortion providers and zero punishment for her if she rats in the provider. If she doesn’t, then 18 years mandatory minimum sentence for her. If her botched abortion goes wrong, then no healthcare at all for her until she rats in the provider.
It’s not even hard to sell the policy above to plebs as pro-women. But it won’t happen in the next 10 years. There’s not enough time for such panic to set in and governments are super incompetent anyway.
Again, keep in mind that it’s not me that wants such policies. Personally idgaf about abortion policy either way. I’m just noticing.
2035-2040 – the real fun
By 2040 the oldest millennials will be 60. And they will be hoping for a pension. And it will be glorious to watch as they get fucked.
If you’re a millennial and planning to retire on a state pension, please, for your sake, stop being retarded and start saving up yesterday.
The oldest zoomers will be in their 40s, the oldest Alphas will be in their late 20s and the oldest gen Betas will be between 10 and 15.
By this point nearly all Boomers are dead but the fallout from the collapse of pensions still hasn’t burned through. By this time the Zoomers’ brainworm about intergenerational relations will have been cured and you will see very funny alliances between men age 20 to 60, the smartest of their generations, starting to work on how to fix things.
You should hope and pray that men like me won’t be too numerous. Or maybe you should hope and pray that there will be.
You think I’m radical/extremist? The average high school kid today has ideas about sexual politics that make me sound like a feminist. Social conservatives interpret this as “traditionalist” but they are, of course, wrong.
Already today it’s no longer acceptable to just try to go to status-quo ante.
So-called conservative women’s magazines have been trying since 2024 to convince men to call a truce[36] and “stop the gender wars” and men have replied with a complete sentence: “NO.”
The gender wars will only be over when men win. Anything less than unconditional surrender won’t be enough.
And by 2040 victory will be quite close if not outright achieved.
Again, all men have to do is to maintain the current course: ignore women’s demands, work less, have more fun, refuse to pay taxes, milk the State wherever possible (NEET buxx are a great thing – too bad it’s not available in my country) and refuse to do anything that isn’t immediately quantifiable in direct benefit for himself. That’s it. And all of these are activities for which men are very well equipped.
Also, in 2040, the generation that was supposed to be born between today and 2030 will be minuscule. By 2040 Africa will have caught up with the rest of the world and join us in the world of 0.7 total fertility rate.
The population of China will be well bellow one billion. The population of
Japan will be bellow 100 million (the drop will be much more drastic than current projections show). The population of russia will also be bellow 100 million.
Even with migration, the population of Europe will dip below 700 million people.
Economic growth will have long become a thing of the past. The progressives of today will struggle to conserve (heh, ironically) whatever they can from the previous order.
But those will be defeated swiftly. The real political struggle will be what kind of new order will prevail.
Socialists will also be easily defeated because they’re all women and simps. By 2040 might will make right.
Any political thought that doesn’t automatically agree with wild capitalism and abolition of the feminist sexual order won’t even be allowed in the decision making rooms, let alone get a seat at the table.
It sounds wild when you put it this way, but it will go down rather smoothly. Propagandists like me will write very passionate speeches about women’s safety and have the cutest twinks deliver them as they propose the temporary suspension of voting rights.
There will be a debate, alright. But 90% of the current political factions will be automatically excluded from it.
Some countries will devolve into straight up dictatorships. Some “civilized” countries will probably go down first.
The most progressivism-infected nations would rather burn everything down than negotiate. And demographic shifts won’t be enough to offset that.
In this period, the debates won’t even take place in public that much. 2040 is like 1987 behind the Iron Curtain. Everyone knows that the war is about to be over, so we’re already debating what to do after that.
Alliances will be ironed out, betrayals will happen, of course. But by 2045 at the latest there will be a good idea on how to move forward. I don’t know (or care) which faction wins out because all of those at the table will be antifeminists and “illiberal” by present-day standards.
Countries competing for people
This already happens to a certain extent today, but by 2040 the competition will reach levels unimaginable right now.
And countries won’t be competing for women – but for competent men willing to work. And one way to entice them will be their women. If you think this doesn’t sound credible, I urge you to look into the de facto results of the “expat” policies of SEA.
In 2040 you won’t attract competent men willing to work with low taxes and nice weather alone. You will have to give them something that radically increases the chances of them saying “YES.”
The countries that get this first will be at least regional powers in the second half of this century.
To quote sci-fi author Devon Eriksen[37]:
The sex drive of the young human male is the supreme force of civilization. It invented the technologies, it fought every war, it founded every nation, it built every empire. […]
You cannot go to war with horny.
You can go to war with degenerate. You can go to war with promiscuous. You can go to war with perverted. You can even go to war with hedonistic.
But you cannot go to war with horny.
You will lose.
Your movement, whatever it is, will fail if you do not offer young men a clear, understandable, viable path to women they actually want.
The details don’t matter. You can offer them inexpensive prostitutes, a hedonistic society full of sluts, or one adoring virgin bride.
But you have to offer them something other than shame, celibacy, and the longhouse.
Or they will spurn you as you would spurn a rabid dog.
The old (current) order offered men shame, celibacy and the longhouse. The first countries that figure this one out will win the century.
As a sidenote, Devon Eriksen has two wives. They both carry his name. He just doesn’t talk about it much. But a lot more young men listen to him than to Brad Wilcox or Sheryl Sandberg combined.
The personal panics and the moments of truth
From 2035 onwards, the flow of feminist tears will turn into the Danube, Dnepr and Mississippi combined.
Another 5000+ years old wisdom that we all knew and have been pretending to have forgotten lately is that youth isn’t eternal – and that’s something that tends to have a harsher effect on women than on men.
By 2035 Zoomettes will be in their mid to late 30s. The oldest Zoomer will be 38 in 2035.
The Zoomer men who built their lives under idealistic nonsense (be it religion coping or “chad” coping) will be hit by the panic that they’re suddenly way beneath the “normies”. But most of them will finally grow up anyway.
The Zoomer women, however, oh boy. It will be incredibly fun to watch.
Three years ago it was projected that 45% of women aged 25-to-44 will be single and childless by 2030[38]. I don’t think that will turn out to be true by 2030. But it will definitely turn out to be true in a significant minority of countries by 2035 and a significant majority of the countries by 2040.
The dirty little secret is that this won’t be the “empowering” moment that feminists believe it will be. Quite the opposite, it will be a moment of seething and immense tragedy. Expect a lot of desperate (and violent) events from these women. And they won’t attack men (because they can’t) – they will attack other women!
Remember the acid attacks? Yeah, the reason the conversation stopped about that is because half of the perps are women. And the motivation is intra-sexual competition. And you’re not allowed to talk about that.
Of course, we can’t know for sure how will femcel violence manifest, but you can bet on it happening.
The end of religion-coping
“Post-religious” doesn’t mean no religion. There will still be religious people, of course. And they will still be the majority. But religion itself will continue to decline in importance when it comes to public policy and sexual politics in particular. Why? Because men are slowly figuring it out that religion in practice doesn’t deliver on the fundamentals. Sure, not all of them and not all at once, but enough to be significant.
Something you rarely see discussed is the rapid secularization of dar al Islam. The phenomenon is known in think tanks as islamization from above, secularization from below[39] and it’s a lot more massive than you think.
The reason suddenly all Golf countries are renouncing their flagship “socially conservative” public policies is not some enlightenment values of the (new) elite and it’s not even economic that much. The reason is self-preservation. For the regime to survive, public islamism has to go. And gone it will be.
One of the reasons the Islamic Republic of Iran has a total fertility rate lower than Romania is precisely because le based and trad Iran is… really… not le based and definitely not trad at all. And this phenomenon is the norm allover dar al Islam. Sure, not at the same pace and not everywhere (there are still plenty of pockets that buck the trend for now) but they’re all getting there. And by 2040 the vast majority of dar al Islam will have some version of the sexual politics of Iran and UAE (total fertility rate 1.4 right now, less than 0.7 by 2040).
The popular argument in the “pro natalist” crowd is that religion can fix this. By 2040 they will all learn the hard way that this is impossible. Because you can’t fix fertility like that. Force and hope fix fertility. Religion alone offers neither in practice.
Another cope by religious “social conservatives” is to point out that religiosity is higher among younger people for the first time in a century. But when you look closer, you notice several things:
- Yes, it’s higher, but like 7% higher. 7% out of a minuscule generation (again, half of zoomers were aborted because women’s careers were more important) is not significant.
- Once you look even closer, it turns out it’s mostly older people coming back to the church but overall church attendance continues to drop more or less unabated[40]
- While the kids were curious in 2018-2020, their curiosity was satisfied and they fucked off in the meantime (pandemic lockdowns didn’t help either)
- Historically women were more interested in religion than men. Today it’s the opposite. This is unsustainable. And, unsurprisingly, once the men realize they can’t find a faithful girl in the church, they fuck off, usually for good.
No matter your opinion about religion (any religion, really), the post-misandrist order will require coalitions. And men will be pragmatic enough to keep most religion out of that because the men born after 1980 weren’t raised particularly religious to begin with. Sure, this isn’t equally true everywhere in the world, but it’s true at least in part in over 150 countries. And it’s truer in very religious countries. The post-revolutionary Persians are even less religious than the revolutionary generation. The under 40 years old Arabs are significantly less revolutionary and less Islamist than their grandfathers.
Not all of this is self-evident now, but it will be by 2040.
Again, all existing forms of organized religion will survive. But they will compete on much smaller markets than today for actual attendants.
The customs and inertia of simply counting every new child born in Europe as “Christian” and every new child born in the Middle East as “Muslim” (and so on with SEA and Buddhism) will also continue. But by 2040 a lot more people will become aware of just how much of a lie that is.
Also, new forms of organized religion will emerge. Some of them won’t be officially called religions (feminism is ultimately a religion too) but they will function as such.
The Freemasons for instance are dying out. While they cope that they’re aKcHuaLLy “resizing” the enrollment and retention numbers speak for themselves. As do the increasing mergers and closures of lodges. By 2040, the trend will continue because as religiosity declines, so does the willingness to swear allegiance to the Architect.
All of these will be replaced by new forms of de facto organized religion. Some are probably already out there but still small. Others will be founded in the next 5 years and become relevant by 2040.
But one thing is certain: The religious landscape globally will look very different from today. It will be more diverse and more ideologically promiscuous. This is great news for those stuck in dar al Islam, but terrifying news for those who hope for a Christian revival (given that already the churches are ideologically promiscuous in nearly all wrong ways).
The punishment against the elderly
If you are born before 1970, get ready to get royally fucked. And, by and large, it is and will be your fault. You will deserve it. Sure, not all of you. But nearly all of you.
Again, nearly all of the misandrist thought leaders are in their 50s now. By 2040 they will be in their early 70s. But so will be their primary followers.
Elon Musk will be fine. So will be the editors of both cuckservative and “liberal” misandrist think tanks, magazines and books. But about their avid readers?
Not only your pension won’t be paid, but even if you can afford that, most elderly care will either be soulless and automated or managed by third world immigrants.
If you think young women will rush to work there, I have a bridge to sell to you. If you think young men will “man up” for you, I have the Empire State Building for sale for you.
The punishment is unlikely to look like a “day of the pillow” fantasy. It’s a lot more likely to look like the way old apparatchiks got punished in the 1990s in post communism. Severe ostracism, intentional policies meant to harm them or keep them away from any meaningful employment or pensions, social shunning and we’ll just forget you ever existed.
Are you ready for that? If not, better start saving up now and think of escape plans. To where? To some place warm where you can afford to pay and select people who don’t intentionally hate you.
Why the hate, you may ask? Well, in the past, the trade-off was that you do your duties to the kids and in return they care for you in old age and you leave them some inheritance.
Gen Xers (globally speaking) will not leave much inheritance and are assessed on average by their own kids as having been terrible parents. That is to say those that did have kids. Older Millennials are also in this boat but their time comes after 2050 so they still have a chance of changing the future.
Again, if you think young(er) men will simply forget and forgive, I have a bridge for sale.
The whole “you have a duty to your parents” bullshit falls on deaf ears nearly always in 2026. It will be an afterthought by 2040.
2045 – The Fall of the Berlin Wall
Unless something radical happens and changes the timeline, the watershed moment will come around the year 2045.
“We’re all misogynists now” – will be the headline in whatever will still pass for quasi-mainstream media at the time.
By this time, the very idea of feminism will have been widely recognized as evil and the very same feminist politicians will be compelled to dismantle whatever is left from the old order. Just like commie politicians were asked to dismantle socialism and be happy about it.
All the time from 2026 to 2045, the evolution will have been non-linear and disjointed allover the globe. Each country with its own inertia. But when the struggle is over, it’s over more or less in sync.
Just like the Cold War had radically different evolutions even within the communist world, the same will be true with the gender war.
I have no idea how the watershed moment will look like. Maybe it will be a gigafeminist politician of a large country coming out in support of the opposition and start incarcerating the worst offenders (really war criminals) of the old regime. Or maybe it will be an up and coming politician who goes full Nayib Bukele on feminism: unapologetically gulag. Or maybe, as feminists currently fantasize, a country goes Handmaid’s Tale-like.
But whatever it will be, those who will live then, will recognize it.
How will the world react to this is impossible to predict. But the moment will come and it will happen.
At the elite level (which will also look very different from now) the previously hush-hush discussions will be brought out in the open. The negotiation on how the new world order looks like will be in full swing. Except it won’t be a real negotiation except for maybe some technical details. The broad strokes will have been drawn a decade prior.
So if you want to influence the future, you better start now. You still have a chance of changing the outcome. In 2045 it will be way too late.
So how will this future look like?
2050 – Cyberpunk with 1750s politics
The cope by social conservatives of today is that if we just go back to the ‘50s then everything will be “normal” again.
The problem with that rationale is that it lacks imagination and also fundamentally doesn’t understand men. Especially young(er) men.
The 1950s USA were an exceptional period, but also a tiny blip on world history.
The 1950s for most of the world meant food rationing, outright famine, the Main Directorate of Correctional Labour Camps (aka Gulag) and several wars you never heard of.
Also, even in the USA the 1950s weren’t great for men. They were great for women, yes, but, as we established, the fact that something is great for women is a negative thing. The 1950s for American men meant being drafted and a doubling of workload from the 1930s for the average man (and the 1930s were also a doubling of workload for the average man compared to the 1910s).
If you think any contemporary man wants that once he finds out what it means in practice, you are crazy, uninformed or a misandrist. There’s really no way around this.
It is much more likely that we look at some other 50s – let’s say the 1750s – for inspiration on morality and public policy. That doesn’t mean wanting to go literally back to the 1750s because, as the revealed preference of men shows, those under 40 largely prefer a balance between modernity convenience and the work schedule of a 14th century peasant, but also with more flexibility.
Also, the revealed preferences of men on aggregate already shows that we don’t want most of the consoomerist shit. And by 2050 the money for that will have largely ran out. Women will notice but men will simply not give a shit. Oh no, there aren’t 50000 types of overpriced lingerie to pick from anymore, but only 10. What a fucking tragedy!
By 2050 the technological progress won’t be so spectacular as technooptimists expect, but it won’t be zero either. Stuff that’s on the margins today will be better and cheaper by then. But the selection criteria will gradually shift. Anything that’s not widely appreciated by men will simply not be made.
There will still be consumer spending, but women won’t be driving 80% of it. They should be happy if they still end up driving 40% of it. Ideally, women shouldn’t be driving more than 20% of consumer spending and that’s including necessities.
It’s impossible to predict the actual proportions, but the sheer economic inertia dictates that women’s influence in consumer spending will necessarily go down.
There will still be women in employment, just a lot fewer of them.
Paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens, you will see his vision in practice: It especially annoys me when “sexists” are accused of ‘discrimination.’ The ability to discriminate is a precious faculty; by judging all members of one sex to be the same, the “sexist” precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination.
We’ll look back at DEI as a period of mental illness and generalized illiteracy. And we’ll get back to 1750s hiring practices. Sure, we’ll hire women, provided that they adapt to us, not the other way around.
The economic incentives alone will drive behaviors in ways that would piss off both the “liberals” and the “social conservatives” of 2026.
With men simply unwilling to work more than 150-180 days a year and demographic inertia finally catching up with everyone, organizations will be forced to adapt.
You can still afford in 2026 to fire men for “not having a work ethic” (read: they’re not as Stakhanovite as Xers and older Millennials) but what are you going to do when the vast majority of the workforce is like that?
Sure, robotics will advance, but not as much and as spectacular as you may think. The advancement of robotics (and especially its wide implementation) does depend ultimately on economic growth. Robots are expensive. And nobody is going to invest in them if the line persistently goes down.
The working patterns of 2050 will be way different compared to 2026.
What’s in it for me at your explicit expense?
This question will be asked by men a lot more often than today. In all contexts – from politics, to workplace and all the way to romantic relationships. And if you don’t have an adequate response, you will see his back.
This is already happening today, but it’s not big enough to be making an aggregate difference. But it will be big enough in 25 years.
“Marriage” (if it survives as a concept by 2050, and I think it will in some form) will have to necessarily include an answer to that. Women will have to explicitly lose something that explicitly and unapologetically benefits the man.
Again: There is no prosperity and no civilization without some form of marriage being explicitly made attractive to men.
How will that look depends on which faction(s) win out in the 2040s. But something will have to give. And that something will have to come at the expense of women. And it will.
Same in employment. The current corpocuck culture is all about the wonderful shit you “accomplish” by being a good drone for the nameless faceless corpo whose line goes up if you’re a good boy. Okay, but men don’t give a shit about that. What’s in it for him that is explicitly at the expense of the corpo?
In similar workforce crises of the early 21st century, corporations coped by:
- Importing workforce
- Exporting offices (to India for instance)
- Adding more gimmicks/benefits
- Raising the wages
The first two won’t be working in 2050 (in fact they’re already showing their limits in 2026). Indian Zoomers are no different than Western ones. They don’t want to work a lot either.
Adding more gimmicks showed its limits in Silicon Valley. The quality of the products still declined. And so did the amount of actual work. By 2050 the limits of this strategy will be crystal clear for all to see.
Raising the wages has historically worked but there is no guarantee it will work in 2050. Historically, raising the wages worked because men used to want more children as soon as they got more money. But by 2050 a significant minority if not an outright majority of men will have comfortably be set into the “zero children” lifestyle. Can the other half of men compensate? In theory, yes. In practice, probably not. Demographic inertia alone will prevent any spectacular result between 2026 and 2050.
And with less work and no desire for children, higher wages may become a lot less impressive for a significant minority of men.
Also, we already know from the present timeline that there is in fact an upper limit from which point onwards there’s diminishing returns for an individual. The actual limit varies by individual and by country, of course (as well as CoL and other concerns) but for the vast majority of people $200k/yr (in 2026 US dollars) is really the upper limit. And for a significant portion the difference in life satisfaction from $120k/yr to 200k/yr is marginal.
If you adjust that for PPP for other places, the limits are likely even lower than that.
But again: those numbers are calculated on 2025 incentives and include women and old(er) men (who are more Stakhanovite about work). Zoom in (no pun intended) on young(er) men and the limit is even lower.
All of these trends will continue to accelerate until 2050. The mass waves of (hyper)inflation of the 2030s and 2040s will sour even more people on money.
I have no idea (nor do I care) how organizations will adapt to this. But I do know for sure that they will have to or go bankrupt. Names that today look like they’re too big to fail will fail long before 2050.
If someone had told you in 1990 that Blockbuster and Kodak will go bankrupt, you would’ve called them crazy. I suspect OpenAI won’t exist by 2050. Meta Inc. is debatable that it can survive this.
The grifts won’t survive. Those who build something, might.
Greater male variability dictates that men’s requirements from politics will be a lot more diverse. If universal suffrage survives by 2050, the election campaigns will be a spectacle to enjoy and the kind of spectacle you can’t even begin to imagine today.
If I had told you in 2015 that there will be a supermajority in the European Parliament in favor of mass deportations, you would’ve called me crazy. Heck I didn’t dare to make such a prediction even though I thought about it but deemed it a bit far fetched. Yet it did happen.
Let’s just say that unshakeable tenets of the current “civilization” will be up for grabs and debated for abolition as a casual thing in 2050. Again, assuming universal suffrage survives. And I hope it won’t.
The cyberpunk-ish social life
Less work from men brings two things at once:
- More (and faster) innovation – because men tinkering with shit in peace always ends up with new awesome stuff
- More complex and different type of crime – because, again, greater male variability is a thing
“The street finds its own uses for things”[41] is a very real phenomenon. I lived through it in the early 1990s. But are you ready for globalized 1991-1999 Eastern Europe but with more, cheaper and better tech?
The comparison with 1990s Eastern Europe is not at random. It’s the only place in recent memory that had Cyberpunk IRL. As the old order collapsed and the new one hadn’t taken its place yet, that decade was both amazing and awful.
Amazing through its de facto liberty and awful through its violence and unresolved trauma from communism. Although, looking back, while it was far more violent than the present day (Eastern Europe is one of the safest places in the world), it was still nowhere near as violent as your average US city or most of Latin America.
So, if anything, most of the world will in fact be more peaceful than today, although some regions will see a spike in violence.
But violence aside, the society with some 1750s norms but 2050 tech will be significantly more diverse than today. It will be and feel alive. And men will love it.
It will have a different kind of order than today, but order nonetheless. Compared to the chaos of the 2030s and 2040s, it will be much better. Women can choose to adapt to it, and most eventually will.
There will be global diversity still. Some places will try to replicate some form of liberal democracy, others will try a techno autocracy (a lot more possible in 2050 after the feminization of tech had been purged), others will try some hybrid regimes and world politics will be less formal than it is today.
The excessive formality and pomposity of the late 20th century and early 21st century will give way to more direct and informal approaches. The gentlemanly world some of you long for will have long died by 2050. It’s already on life support in 2026.
There is not a single politician under the age of 40 that resembles old politicians in style. From the far-left to the far-right, the archetypes are closer to JD Vance than to Konrad Adenauer. Again, this is global. The hopefuls in China don’t resemble Xi Jinping. The younger politicians in SEA don’t resemble Hun Sen. The current PM of Japan is already vastly different from the norm of the Japanese political class. By 2050 “go fuck yourself” will be normal political speech.
I mean, today we have the POTUS talking about the Saudi prince kissing his ass[42] and barely anyone gives a damn.
This has happened before. Read newspapers from the 18th and especially 19th century and really all the way to mid 1930s. It was perfectly normal for politicians and heads of state to insult and humiliate each other quite brutally as a norm, rather than an exception.
An entirely different work ethic
Demographics and shifting attitudes guarantee this outcome even if the rest of the article turns out wrong.
Just think about it: The supposed mainstream work ethic expectation of today is a mixture between the worst excesses of Protestantism and Soviet-Japanese Stakhanovite insanity.
Whether justified by “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop” or by “Work sets you free” (but in German) – the idea is fundamentally the same and fundamentally Protestant.
Ideas have people. And this idea is running out of people. There will be fewer working age Japanese and Protestants by 2050. And with that, the prominence of their ideas will necessarily go away with it.
What will replace it? A mixture between Middle Eastern and Southern European, if you ask me. It won’t be a significant improvement at population level, but a sufficient improvement to give way to a somewhat functional equilibrium.
This has happened before. After the Black Death wages increased, work scheduled decreased even further and for all intends and purposes the ideas about work from before 1350s quite literally died off.
The same will happen now. But on a slower timeline because life expectancy is longer and it’s not a deadly disease causing the demographic shock but purposeful aggregate choices of billions of people.
Additional thoughts
You will notice that I didn’t say anything about a world war, generalized mobilization or really anything related to the current versions of panic porn circulating over the Internet.
The reason is twofold: First, I genuinely do not believe there will be a world war between now and 2050. The demographics make that a bad idea. And watching russia’s performance on the field has put everyone else on notice that real life is a lot more complicated.
Second, even if I’m wrong about the first, and there will be a hot war that can accurately be described as a world war, that would do nothing but accelerate the timeline.
The problems outlined in the second chapter are global, not western-specific. If you think young(er) men will sign up in droves to fight for the advancement of this “civilization” then I have a bridge to sell to you.
Sure, the stupidest of the stupid will (like always), but that, again, will accelerate the timeline. Because at the end of the war, the only ones alive and still functional will be men whose thought patterns resemble mine rather than the current pseudo-mainstream.
It has never been easier to avoid a draft. Finding out how is a matter of minutes if you don’t know already (btw, you should know already). Maybe it’s time women put on their strong independent girlpants and go to the trenches.
Heck, for equity purposes, I propose a women-only draft until 2150 at the very least in order to compensate for the centuries of women’s exclusion from the military affairs. I’m not even sure I’m joking at this point.
On nuances
Some portions of this article sound harsher than they should while others sound milder than they should. I tried to correct/edit as many as possible but at over 20,000 words, it’s becoming a bit of a chore.
So, instead, I’ll note here: None of the assumptions above need to be happening with a majority of men or a very significant minority.
The balance of this “civilization” is so fragile that it’s enough if 50% of men aged 25 to 60 simply slow down work and withdraw tax revenue.
Right now, globally, the male labor participation rate is 72%. Down from 80% in 2010. And it’s already globally noticeable. All I’m saying is that in the next 15 years it drops by double that rate and, additionally, another 10-to-15 percentage points intentionally drop their input without dropping altogether. That’s it. That’s all there’s needed for most of the predictions of this article to come to fruition.
Also, while the global rates look untenable, once you focus only on the first and second world (where data is more reliable), we’re actually closer to achieving this. You just need to know where to look. Countries and regions have already started to lie quite blatantly about this in attempt to hide the reality so that other plebbish men don’t get ideas.
For instance, in the EU, it is claimed that male labor participation rate is 80%. This is a lie. But you only know it’s a lie if you know how the EU considers “labour participation”. Turns out students (literally subsidized unemployment) are counted as labour participation. Once you remove those, the male labor participation rate in the EU is in fact smaller than the global median.
The US is more honest. The male labor participation rate in 2026 is approximately 67% (again, lower than the global median) down from 75% in late 2000s. Is it really that hard to believe that in another 15 years it will drop to 50%?
Point being: while some of the predictions in this story may end up being wrong on the details, the broad picture stands a very good chance of turning out true.
What can be done?
Realistically, nothing. Because none of the things that work are even being considered. And in fact it’s a “crime” (sometimes quite literally) to mention things that work.
And the direction taken by rich(er) countries in the last 2 years show pretty clearly that while everyone is aware of the issue, nobody is willing to rip the band aid. Part of the reason is coping that maybe the issue isn’t that bad and part of the reason is that it’s straight up illegal to do what’s right.
That is why I’m so sure that only a more radical reset stands any chance. When peaceful resolution is impossible, revolution is inevitable.
Abolishing DEI (as the Trump administration is trying) is only a tiny, infinitesimal, nearly irrelevant step in the right direction. It’s more than nothing, sure. But it’s like trying to treat Ebola with a glass of water. Yes, rehydration is important in treating Ebola but it takes a lot more than a single glass of water to save the patient.
Similarly, abolishing DEI is part of what’s necessary, but it’s ultimately unimportant unless it’s doubled by the absolutely necessary shock therapies.
You want to make sure 100% of my predictions are wrong? Okay, here we go.
On pensions:
- Women’s retirement age moves to 74 (everywhere) and men’s to 65 (62 in most of the world)
- All state pensions are cut by 1% every single year from now until 2050
- Alternative to the first two, admit in public that zero people will be getting any state pension and abolish the scheme altogether effective immediately
On economics:
- Female-favoring affirmative action becomes a jailable offense for the individual. All organizations caught doing it are automatically outlawed and all their assets confiscated. The money resulted from liquidation goes to paying the national debt
- Deflation as the norm until 2050. Inflation rate above -0.1% leads to automatic dismissal of the government that causes it. The line must go down. Even Maynard Keynes would approve of this if he were alive today.
- 100% of programs “for women” get abolished and all the money saved up go to paying the national debts
- Total individual fiscal burden reduced to no more than 15% by 2035. Anything that’s not military needs to be abolished or drastically reduced. Starting with anything that primarily benefits women.
- All state programs get under an audit. Those that benefit primarily women get shut down immediately while those that benefit primarily men get shut down gradually by 2040. For extra spite, the audit should use the “disparate impact standard” because women deserve that shit intentionally turned against them.
Social and family policy:
- Polish abortion law as the norm but with far harsher punishments
- Countries that provide abortion to foreigners should be sanctioned by the countries that adopt a Polish-like legislation.
- No fault divorce is abolished
- Explicit women’s duties stipulated in law and enforceable with fines or jail time
- Default custody for fathers in case of divorce (the historical norm, btw)
- Women-only spaces except prisons become mandatory co-ed. Yes, all the others. Including your precious “sports”
- Funding for women’s sports from the State becomes zero as a constitutional amendment until at least the year 2200.
- Private funding for women’s sports is permitted but taxed as gambling at 40%+ rates. This applies even if the enterprise is at a loss.
- Men-only spaces become a constitutional inalienable right
Education policy:
- Any educational institution that has less than 70% male teachers for more than two years in a row gets shutdown. If private, the owners and shareholders forbidden from founding a new one for at least 10 years.
- Feminist advocacy in schools becomes punishable under anti-Nazi and anti-communist legislation. Fines and jailtime until morale improves.
- Ideological screening of teachers. Anything to the left of Giorgia Meloni should not be permitted at all around children. Especially around boys.
- State kindergartens get shut down. They don’t serve children, but selfish women.
- Mandatory instruction gets reduced to a maximum of 6 years.
- State high schools get auctioned off or shutdown and the real estate repurposed
Labor law:
- Unions in taxpayer-funded enterprises and institutions become classified as mob organizations and a threat to national security
- Employees’ rights gradually get phased out
- “Anti-discrimination” protections get abolished. Especially the sex-based ones
- Tax deductions for the companies that hire married men. Bigger if 50%+ of the company is comprised by married men
- Maternity leave can stay and even be expanded
- Companies have an obligation to offer a minimum of 5% raise to fathers within a month of their child being born. The raise is 10% if it’s the second child. And 20% if it’s the third or more
Healthcare:
- All taxpayer-funded healthcare is abolished
- All State involvement in healthcare is abolished
- Any guild/cartel that limits the number of personnel or skews the numbers gets treated like union – as a mob organization that must be put down
And that’s just the beginning. Is anyone willing to implement even half of that list? Nope. The only one likely to happen even in the current regime is de facto erasure of employees’ rights. It’s already happening in the EU quietly for the simple reason that the legislation is impossible to observe and also turn a profit.
But everything else is very unlikely. Because everyone is tethered to liberalism. This is why, ultimately, enjoy the decline is the only realistic option.
Doing nothing is easier and also ends up (on a longer timeline) with the implementation of at least some of the measures in the above list. Again, the current setup is unsustainable. We can pretend for a little longer that it is, but the jig is up. You can’t fool mathematics.
Now, in addition to the mountain of insults I’ll be getting for this article, be ready to also enjoy the cope. Because even the people who know I’m right would rather cope that it’s economics, or a certain ethnic group, or just bad luck in geopolitics or… whatever. Anything just not to admit that women’s privileges have gone too far and must be trimmed vigorously for civilization to survive.
Epilogue
Ultimately, this is all an exercise of fuck around and find out.
We, collectively, fucked around for way too much, diverged from the global biological norm way too much and the mandatory reasserting of reality is unavoidable.
This is true not just in the realm of sexual politics, but also economics, science, geopolitics and a plethora of other areas. Too many countries have swallowed luxury beliefs and forgot that those beliefs stand on raw power. And raw power ultimately comes from men of fighting age. The multiple layers of abstraction have made this less obvious, but that doesn’t mean the fundamentals changed. They didn’t.
Go ahead and curse at me. Call me names if that makes you feel better. But once you calm down, you still need to face the facts: I didn’t fuck up the world. Women did. I’m just the scribe, documenting the slow and persistent decline.
You can shoot the messenger, but it won’t make the world a better place. Solving the issue of women’s privilege would.
You won’t make the world a better place by continuing to pretend than anyone objecting to women’s privilege must be an unfucked incel or a fan of that or the other podcaster. Heck, I’m older than some of them. They were still teenage boys when I was writing about this stuff.
In reality, the unfucked incels are the biggest simps. And perhaps this is one of the issues. In the northern hemisphere, significant majorities of the elite are unironically sexless. Repressed unfucked unfunny simps. This reality probably contributed to the problem.
You can hope and pray that I’m wrong. And, who knows? Maybe that works.
Or, you can do the rational thing and hope for the best but prepare for the worst. And especially prepare your young(er) friends and family.
One important thing that I didn’t mention: The vast majority of the people who will end up reading this are either high agency people or “autists” who already know most of this. The problem with high agency people is that they tend to have no theory of mind for the low agency people (which are the majority). Low agency men tended to become factory workers and low agency women married one of them.
The current “civilization” tells low agency men to function like a top 10% hustling contractor and in exchange for that sacrifice (for which many of them are structurally incapable of anyway) they should then marry a low agency woman who in the meantime contracted 3 STDs and has had two abortions. If you think this is reasonable, you are part of the problem. And if you don’t understand that “do better” is not an option at all, you are still part of the problem.
At a population level, the limits for self-improvement have been reached (or are about to be reached very soon). And none of this would be a problem if in the last 20 years we would’ve cared for the misandry bubble. Now it’s too late. It popped. And it’s leaking and getting progressively worse. There is no patching out of this. It needs chemo, antibiotics, dialysis, monoclonal antibodies and vast amounts of reconstructive skin surgery. And it’s still no guarantee that the patient survives.
Keeping the expectations for men at 1926 levels while removing all women’s duties was never going to be sustainable. It was a cute experiment, but it’s time to be mature about it and accept that it was a terrible idea.
There might never come a moment of wide realization of this reality. But the moment of wide realization of the consequences is already here.
That’s it. That simple.
Sources:
[1] The Misandry Bubble, Imran Khan, The Futurist,
January 1, 2010 – https://theredarchive.com/blog/The-Futurist/the-misandry-bubble.47953
[2] American Diner Gothic; Robert Mariani, The New Atlantis, Spring 2026 issue – https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/american-diner-gothic (archived in case of purge – https://archive.is/AXtSe)
[3] EYNTK about hypergamy: the oldest dating technique in the book; Rachel Varina; October 31, 2024; Cosmopolitan Magazine – https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/relationships/a45592448/hypergamy-definition/
[4] Becoming ambient; Luigi Logan (aka Fidelbogen); A Voice for Men,
November 12, 2012 – https://avoiceformen.com/hypergamy/becoming-ambient/
[5] Why women cheat: mate-switching vs. dual-mating; Human Behavior & Evolution Society; Macken Murphy,
August 15, 2024 – https://www.hbes.com/mate-switching-vs-dual-mating/
[6] Women told more white lies in evaluations than men: study; Cornell
University – Department of Psychology; May 18, 2020 – https://psychology.cornell.edu/news/women-told-more-white-lies-evaluations-men-study
[7] Research says women lie more on social media, especially on Twitter; Catherine Armitage, August 4, 2015; The Sydney Morning Herald – https://www.smh.com.au/technology/research-says-women-lie-more-on-social-media-especially-on-twitter-20150804-girlww.html
[8] Why do women lie more than men? Because we’re ‘nicer’; Anouchka Grose, June 5, 2015, The Guardian – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/05/women-lie-untruths-human
[9] Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men? – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 87 (4): 494–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494 – https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf
[10] ibid
[11] Genital mutilation rates are dropping. And that’s great!; Lucian Vâlsan,
June 3, 2015; A Voice for Men – https://avoiceformen.com/male-genital-mutilation-2/genital-mutilation-rates-are-dropping-and-thats-great/
[12] The ‘Baby Foreskin Facial’ Is a Real Thing; Melissa Malamut;
April 14, 2015; Boston Magazine – https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2015/04/14/baby-foreskin-facial-boston-hydrafacial/
[13] Parliament makes Men’s Day official in Romania; Irina Marica,
February 3, 2016; Romania Insider – https://www.romania-insider.com/romania-sets-date-for-mens-day
[14] The Vanishing White Male Writer; Jacob Savage, March 21, 2025 – Compact Magazine – https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-vanishing-white-male-writer/
[15] New EU rules to improve Gender Balance in corporate boards enter into application – https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_22
[16] Number of Suicides in Japan Falls Below 20,000; Nippon – https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h02690/
[17] How these secretive traditional circumcision rites are responsible for dozens of deaths – https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-initiation-circumcision-deaths-eada8249280e1096338ca81c5f9cd11b
[18] South Africa calls gender violence a national disaster after protests;
November 21, 2025 – https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn979g302l9o
[19] Florida Woman Suing Over Male-Only Admission Policy at Clothing-Optional Gay Resort – https://www.advocate.com/law/florida-resort-female-admission
[20] 40 years after winning the right to report from men’s locker rooms, Melissa Ludtke still sees work to be done – https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-409-kavanaugh-and-rape-reporting-getting-gritty-women-in-sports-journalism-saving-haida-and-more-1.4839202/40-years-after-winning-the-right-to-report-from-men-s-locker-rooms-melissa-ludtke-still-sees-work-to-be-done-1.4839285
[21] Most young men are single. Most young women are not.; Daniel de Visé,
February 22, 2023; The Hill – https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/
[22] Study: The rise of “bromance” hurts women; Freedom Alternative;
November 29, 2017 – https://youtu.be/1I8N8s8P-Mo
[23] Sexual partner number and distribution over time affect long-term partner evaluation: evidence from 11 countries across 5 continents – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12313963/
[24] Women Aren’t The Only Ones Who Are Sexually Fluid—Men Have A Pretty “Flexible” Sexuality Too – https://www.sexandpsychology.com/blog/2014/2/24/women-arent-the-only-ones-who-are-sexually-fluidmen-have-a-pretty-flexible-sexuality-too/
[25] Sexual Behavior in the Human Male – Am J Public Health. 2003 Jun;93(6):894–898. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.6.894 – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1447861/
[26] Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today’s; from The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, by Juliet B. Schor – https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html
[27] The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender: Some Evidence from New Zealand; Omar Aziz, Norman Gemmell, Athene Laws – Victoria University of Wellington Working Paper in Public Finance No. 10/2013 – https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375926
[28] https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/
[29] Feminism and Idiocracy: Iceland as the Canary in the Coal Mine; Íris Erlingsdóttir, European Conservative, March 14, 2026 – https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/feminism-and-idiocracy-iceland-as-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine/ (archived link https://archive.is/v3tVO)
[30] Indonesia begins enforcing social media curbs for children under 16;
March 28, 2026; Anadolu – https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/indonesia-begins-enforcing-social-media-curbs-for-children-under-16/3882656
[31] UK to try out social media bans, curfews for teenagers in digital well-being push; Aysu Bicer; March 25, 2026; Anadolu – https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/uk-to-try-out-social-media-bans-curfews-for-teenagers-in-digital-well-being-push/3878642
[32] ‘We will no longer stand by’: Austria plans social media ban for under-14s;
March 27, 2026; Reuters – https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/27/austria-plans-social-media-ban-for-children-under-age-14
[33] Romania’s First Lady: Romania Cannot Follow French Model of Banning Social Media for Children; Martina Gancheva, March 26, 2026 – https://www.bta.bg/en/news/balkans/1092312-romania-s-first-lady-romania-cannot-follow-french-model-of-banning-social-media
[34] Deseret News podcast extras – https://x.com/Deseret/status/2037173823876034607
[35] Democraphics and fertility; Freedom Alternative – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYIigOqDAKnQ04FflevmE-CseAvIGAPD6
[36] Ask Him: Why Does The Manosphere Exist And What Can We Do To Stop The Gender Wars?; Evan Scott, Evie Magazine, April 18, 2024 – https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/why-the-manosphere-exists-and-what-can-we-do-to-stop-gender-wars
[37] https://x.com/Devon_Eriksen_/status/2037689670541480332
[38] 45% Of Women Are Expected To Be Single And Childless By 2030, Per Recent Projection; Gina Florio, Evie Magazine, January 4, 2023 – https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/45-percent-women-are-expected-to-be-single-and-childless-by-2030
[39] Islamization from Above, Secularization from Below: Turkey and Iran as Case Studies; Raz Zimmt, Rémi Daniel; INSS Insight No. 2008, July 10, 2025 – https://www.inss.org.il/publication/turkey-iran/
[40] We thought Gen Z had started going to church in droves. But the truth is more complicated; Catherine Wyatt; February 22, 2026, the BBC – https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0k1jddl51no
[41] Sterling, Bruce (1986). “Preface”. Burning Chrome by William Gibson. Harper Collins
[42] ‘He didn’t think he’d be kissing my ass’: Trump on Saudi Crown Prince Salman – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GhqZ0sSToc
