Ever since I joined this page I've always looked with some measure of incredulity at the prophecies of doom that are often handed down by various members about how it's all going to end. For anyone who is interested I believe I can give you a fairly good prediction of just how the welfare/nanny state and feminism and all its odious apparatus' will eventually die. The prediction is fairly simple and based on government and private spending (privatization of funds via investment) where money is channeled into 'insolvent' ventures. It's really very simple; it’s very mathematical, very honest, I didn’t come up with it myself although those who did foresee this particular economic quandary did not consider its political effects, and this I shall do.

At the moment, in many countries (The UK and Australia in particular) there is a circular and downright illusory (it is not economically viable) system. The government pays little heed to infrastructure and other important, long-term investments instead investing into the private sector to make quick profits, but the private sector is, more and more as time goes on, being fed to growth by illusory money; money which has been borrowed. Examine the growth of private debt and you'll get some idea about this. Now this system is not viable in the long term and when it can't be squeezed anymore the economy will return to square one. I'm not saying we're headed for another great depression; the effect of this situation will be different but just as far-reaching, but the government will be struck hard. You can guarantee this will put an end to the welfare state concept; the simple fact is there won't be the money for it.
With their 'cash prizes' no longer being offered a large number of pointless state organizations contributing nothing to society but PC hysteria will literally cease to exist as the people who work these 'industries' honestly don't care a whit for their so-called ideology and are largely only interested in how much money they can siphon from the public purse, but when the public purse is empty, well, these people will be forced to get real jobs, if anybody would trust them with a real job (I wouldn't)
Essentially, what I'm saying here, is we're currently (in the 1st world) living in a fantasy-world in which money grows out of the earth, but money doesn't grow out of the earth and when you borrow something you eventually run out of tricks to pull and have to pay it back. Women and feminists, and other assorted odd customers do well in these situations (fantasy situations) as they can get something while contributing nothing, but this economic situation can't last forever and when the natural order, financial equilibrium (you receive what you generate) returns, society, in a large part, will have to follow suit.

There will not be a surplus of 'fantasy jobs' as there won't be enough money for anyone to spend 40k a year on a glorified secretary, etc (insert any pointless 'comfort' job which generates no cash) who does nothing but perhaps make their employers schedule a bit less hectic; the employer is going to have to take his lumps, there is no more 'magic money' to be fed into the growth of various industries from out of the purses of the affluenza-afflicted.

The market for real jobs will be more competitive. Positive discrimination? The shareholders aren’t going to stand for it. Employing less skilled or even unskilled workers just to fill a quota, it's just not going to be viable anymore. Remember, there's no more fantasy money, if you want it you have to earn it, you have to generate it, you have to convince someone to part with theirs; not the fantasy money of a twenty year old girl with seven credit cards and a made-up desk job, real money that someone (probably a man) worked his ass off for.

The guts of capitalism is a toned-down law of the jungle; it's not eat-or-be-eaten, but it's pretty close and no less ruthless for all that. It imposes a rather logical order on society, it is an anathema and poison to the ideologues who live in strange platonic fantasy worlds. The problem is we in the first world don't currently have real capitalism, not the bread and butter of it, we're currently living in a consumer fantasy-world, and, hey, if you're a woman or a mangina it's probably allot of fun, after all people are spending more money on luxuries and dainties than ever before, but it's money they don't really have and all good things must come to an end. Expect a bracing and, indeed, rather shocking return to the law of the jungle, soon, because shareholders, employers, heads of industry, etc. run the world, not fuzzy-minded left-leaning politicians and if the fantasy can't be wrung out for anymore profit, if it's dead and staying dead, they'll drop it. Like a stone.

Very good prediction, dad_savage. The penultimate paragraph especially! It will all boil down to that.

Totally agree.

But it's been a long time coming.

Meanwhile MRAs have some damage limitation to do (when they're not too busy building their bunker).

When the money runs out, there will be a crisis. Chaos and despair. People will call out for order, a strong man to make everything right again. The elite will happily oblige and provide a police state with matching Bush-like leader. That will be the end of Western democracy as we know it.

It's quite smart actually. First the elite becomes so incompetent and gluttonous that the democratic welfare state becomes unmanageable. Then, when the crisis comes, they'll blame the poor and politics and seize everything for themselves. Power without responsibility (except to themselves).

Some people would call it progress. I call it fascism.

Good stuff, but don't forget to throw certain external forces into the mix also.

Will the money run out? From what I've read the truth concerning US currency is that Roosevelt took the US off the gold standard. This federal reserve which is not to be confused with anything to do with our federal goverment took in much of our gold and precious metals in a bargaining deal for the debt we already owe. The Fed Reserve makes money based from nothing already.

They can add to it and create instant inflation or take from the flow of cash and create a shortage with causes other problems. They can force stocks to tumble and even create a depression if they desire and gain from it.

If they have the power to wreak havoc on our economy then it is possible that they do it to give the world a reason to join the NWO?

Think about another great depression, yeah I know it's a depressing but how many people would blow their brains out? How many would turn to crime?
By creating massive hysteria once again they could create enough choas in our world that people will beg for a Saviour of some kind, while bankers buy peoples bankrupt fortunes for pennies on the dollar.

It's good to see you're still around, thanks for the feedback. Of course I say this not being quite sure who you are, but I do seem to remember you, or perhaps someone like you.

Yan! I missed your musings and wisdom in my absence, and it's good to see you're still here. I feel that we have a similarity in the way we think about gender and political issues, analyzing them from many angles and perspectives in an effort to understand. So, how is your bunker coming at any rate? I've stocked mine with penguin classics.



You know, Geek, I'm not afraid of a world in which democracy is side-lined. We look at it as thought it's the norm, the political holy grail, and yet for most of human history democracy has been the trick-card, employed rarely and infrequently. When you concentrate power the potential for good and bad increase dramatically. The world finds it's equilibrium, in the end, and if politics were, in the near future, to have real effects on the day-to-day lives of the average person it may be that a lesson will be learned, and then the future will contain much that is worth looking foreword to. Allot of bad things start out seeming good, the opposite is also true.

Billy I can't speak for the American experience given that my understanding of their economic policy does not run so deep; my explanation is a commentary primarily on the welfare states of Europe and other affluent countries within the Anglo sphere (England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) the American economic policy does still value some concrete long-term investments and their level of personal debt does not approach yet the figure of that in these other countries (per head) the simple fact is comparing America and the rest of the Anglo sphere in economic terms is like comparing apples and oranges. America simply has more money, and has never embraced the concept of the nanny-state to the degree which those European and various other countries have.
Essentially what I'm saying is, is that if the UK currently lives in an illusory economy where money is plentiful (but its end-source is, in the long term self depreciating) and there is emphasis on spending this money on black-hole social projects the same cannot generally be said of America. For one within the American economy money is plentiful, this is not illusory, it's simply a benefit of being the richest nation on earth. Secondly America has never had the same zeal as Europe for throwing money away (unless you count military spending, heh) sinking it into bottomless social projects, funding the whinge-mongers and so on.

And then, of course, if America wants to throw war-chests of money into the toilet to appease the whinge-mongers (as it tends to do under democratic government, please don't think this is some kind of trojan-horse statement approving of the Bush school of economic policy [I say school, but it's more like a ranch] as I don't; I mean to say that sane, intelligent conservatives tend to handle the US budget more effectively) it can, sadly, afford to.

As victims of your own affluence I suggest American MRAs work double shifts; you're not going to be saved by a timely recession, but then, unlike in Europe, you have more allies and a stronger voice in government, the religious and political right in your country do actually have some say, after all, being the majorities of it's citizens, conservative politicians can still make progress undoing the rot, acting on the salient concerns of your citizens who tend to espouse less 'progressive' (Progressive being a European term meaning 'platonic idealist') attitudes.

dad_savage, do you think after such an economic downturn that the West would be vulnerable to fanatic Islamic disruption? This is a very common doomsday prediction, that secular materialism will lead to the mosque

Geek?
So a complete global communist world is fine with you?


American has always thrown money away at any country who begs and have fed Russia and other countries for years... We have also squandered much money on peculiar research. I know America doesn't speak for the rest of the world but America is one of the few places where they fear the average gun carrying citizen and the stockpiles they have. Some say we are a nation in love with our guns but it's because many believe it's the only hope of our freedom. Tyrants hate guns.

If you believe a one world government utopia is coming then you must be aware that the elite hate the guns which stand in the way of NWO. The rest of the world would be a piece of cake to bring in a one world government.
Our gun laws are the only thing that America really has over other countries.
And the elite are working hard to take that away. If you dont believe the NWO is coming then my entire post is foolish for sure.

No. But I'm a bit puzzled at how you think I might be. Assuming the question was addressed to me.