The Future of Mankind And The Shape of Things To Come

**Blackmanxxx** · 24th-January-2007

Gentlemen, I have a game which I invite you to play. Let's combine real life history with fiction and come up with something interesting.

A woman runs for president of the USA. She's a feminist and a sociopath. A woman without conscience. She can do anything at all without feeling remorse. She is charismatic, intelligent and ruthless. Her team works tirelessly toward demolishing her political oppoents. Finally, she wins ! She is championed by women and men around the world as the bringer of change. They have no idea how right they are.

She's got a team of female scientists working on a top secret virus.

A virus which shall kill everyone with an XY Chromosome but leave all those with an XX Chromosome unscathed.

It's the ultimate goal of the feminist organizations. To create a feminist utopia by getting rid of all the men on the planet.

For decades, they worked to make their dreams come true. They reduced the number of men in college. They reduced the number of men in politics. They shortened men's lifespan by directing health care solely toward women. They changed laws to demonize and mistreat men. They worked behind the advertising industry to promote negative images of men. They showed women that life without men was better.

They even changed the laws so that female and male students attended same-sex classes. This was not meant to help either sex. It was meant to separate the younger generations of women from the younger generations of men. To show them lives of separatism. To indoctrinate the young women into believing that life without men was better.

They inoculated women and girls with vaccines but not men. Those vaccines were meant to test top secret virus. Viruses which would hurt men but leave women unscathed. It was a glorious success.

When the virus is unleashed.....men of all ages, races, sexual orientations and walks of life fall ill...death soon follows. The hospitals around the world are overrun. No one can help. Families are forever divided. Wives lose husbands. Girlfriends lose boyfriends. Grandmothers lose grandfathers. Mothers lose sons. Across the world, men die.

In the aftermath, the man-haters are successful. The women of the world are weeping. Some of them anyway. Many of them were hardcore man-haters and they welcome this new day.

The women finally inherit the Earth.

And Empress Hillary Clinton is their Supreme Ruler.

This is the shape of things to come.

Isn't it cool ?

**TheSharpenedPen** · 24th-January-2007

While I would agree with you blackmanXXX that feminists do hate men, what you're talking about sounds a lot more like science fiction than fact. How would such a virus work? Would these women really be stupid enough to risk their own lives along with our own - after all, viruses mutate - their well laid plans could easily backfire wiping out both halves of the same species - we are not all so different as they pretend and it wouldn't be a giant leap for the virus.

If all men were wiped out, what then? Who would keep law and order while everything was falling to pieces? And with men gone, who would innovate, create and build the future of tomorrow - certainly not a bunch of leacherous witches who've needed quotas to compete with men all along. Who would do the jobs requiring physical labour, harsh working conditions, or even the risk of death? They'd need us for those jobs at least.

Will they clone themselves, or pool cells? Are they seeking the end of genetic diversity as well? And what of men's absence in the gene pool? Do they really believe that artificial procreative methods will prove better than nature's own? I say they'll have grown a second head within the first year! LOL

While I don't think that women, especially feminists, have men's concerns at the foremost in their thoughts. Their brains would have to be wholly empty to plot something like this. You see, it's as I've always said: you can't hurt one gender without hurting the other, because we're both the same (bloody!) species!!!

Now, if it's Hillary Clinton you're talking about, things will get pretty bad for men no doubt, but wiped out? That would be suicide for her and the fembots as well.

**Tyrael** · 25th-January-2007

This is one of those extreme, doom scenarios. It's indeed mostly fantasy.
Ultimately it comes down to this: men can survive without women, but women cannot survive without men. The only thing men really need females for (in the past, current time, but at not anymore in the future at some point) is for having offspring. That's it.
Perhaps also sexual pleasure. However to counter the sexual pleasure demand for females, a breed of males would need to be created which don't seek that from females.

I can easily envision a future where only the male species remain. Males are already the most purely shaped and successful type of humans (both physically and psychologically) which would be further improved. Sex would be for pleasure only. Procreation happens in special labs who are qualitatively far superior, safer and more efficient then human female hosts.

**John Dias** · 25th-January-2007

I once read that there are some very rare men who have XX chromosomes. I wonder if such men would turn into some sort of resistance force, finding sympathetic females and spreading their XX seed all over the world to replenish the male population (except this time the males would have XX chromosomes).

Fictional, but possible?

**Tyrael** · 25th-January-2007

Quote from johndias

I once read that there are some very rare men who have XX chromosomes. I wonder if such men would turn into some sort of resistance force, finding sympathetic females and spreading their XX seed all over the world to replenish the male population (except this time the males would have XX chromosomes).

Fictional, but possible?

This would be a evolutionary switch. Everything that the Y chromosome does would be done by the extra X chromosome. Hence you get XX males. Some mammals already have XX males. The XX males would only be able to reproduce with a other special type of women and thus you'd get two types of humans who would be incompatible with each other for reproduction. For more information, I've posted a good article about that here.

**bachelor tom** · 25th-January-2007

blackmanxxx what you've described sounds like a fantasy cooked up at NOW

I think if it ever happened women would regret it, even feminists

**knight-errant** · 26th-January-2007

Quote from bachelor tom

blackmanxxx what you've described sounds like a fantasy cooked up at NOW

I think if it ever happened women would regret it, even feminists

No doubt.

However do you believe the average feminist thinks beyond her own hatred enough to consider long term?

I mean mention men around ANY woman and she'll go into some kind of sermon about how "all men are blah-blah". This varies in its acuteness between individuals of course, but I think we've all witnessed this phenomenon for ourselves.

**bachelor tom** · 26th-January-2007

knight-errant, females seem programmed to remain childlike in their thinking and only break out of it with great difficulty (I know this sounds like misogyny, I'm trying not to sound hateful) - this can include blaming others for their problems and not seeing who or what actually sustains them

Would modern women be different if a) they were not so affluent b) they were not coddled by media, education & government c) they experienced the flood of hormones from pregnancy at an earlier age? My theory is that the longer a woman defers childbirth the more rigid and juvenile her behaviour becomes, but I have no info to back that up, just personal observation

**knight-errant** · 26th-January-2007

Quote from bachelor tom

knight-errant, females seem programmed to remain childlike in their thinking and only break out of it with great difficulty (I know this sounds like misogyny, I'm trying not to sound hateful) - this can include blaming others for their problems and not seeing who or what actually sustains them

Would modern women be different if a) they were not so affluent b) they were not coddled by media, education & government c) they experienced the flood of hormones from pregnancy at an earlier age? My theory is that the longer a woman defers childbirth the more rigid and juvenile her behaviour becomes, but I have no info to back that up, just personal observation

Nonetheless an interesting theory tom. They certainly do seem less "stable" in their thought process than men.

**Blackmanxxx** · 27th-January-2007

Gentlemen, when in doubt, follow this rule : bet on the very worst possibilities that human nature has to offer, times your worst nightmare, times one billion. I have seen things you people would not believe. I happen to know that there are men and women out there who are completely without conscience.

Read Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door to learn more about them.

Also helpful is Phillip W. Cook's book Abused Men : The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence.

Patricia Pearson's book When She Was Bad : Violent Women And The Myth of Innocence is also helpful.

For the complete shebang, there's Steeves Volmar's Men's Rights Activists.http://www.lulu.com/content/608450

There's an entire chapter devoted to sociopaths in the book. Native Americans knew how to deal with women without conscience and their male counterparts. That's where the Wendigo stories come from.

African Culture often speaks of Abominations, creatures that look like men and women yet aren't human, not because they're another species, but because they lack that which makes a human being truly human : A conscience.

Guess what ?

Whether you call them sociopaths, Abominations or Wendigos, men and women without conscience are out there. They're in positions of power. They delight in inflicting pain upon others. They're ruthless, manipulative and completely evil.

Guess what else ?

The Feminist Movement embraced female sociopaths, women without conscience, with open arms !!!

Hillary Clinton is a sociopath.

Brace yourselves for what is to come, should she win.

**zombiefarmer** · 28th-January-2007

although the initial scenario is a tad exaggerated(women creating a complex virus, please), blackmanxxx does have a point. hillary is a perfect example of an aggressive sociopath and if she were to wield the power of the president of united states, prepare to see alot gendercide in the near future.

**Rebadow** · 28th-January-2007

Quote from zombiefarmer

although the initial scenario is a tad exaggerated(women creating a complex virus, please), blackmanxxx does have a point. hillary is a perfect example of an aggressive sociopath and if she were to wield the power of the president of united states, prepare to see alot gendercide in the near future.

But maybe those unbearable conditions will also cause a lot of men to finally wake up?

Tho' I must say I don't hold much hope in that anymore...

**zombiefarmer** · 28th-January-2007

Quote from little glutton

But maybe those unbearable conditions will also cause a lot of men to finally wake up?

Tho' I must say I don't hold much hope in that anymore...

it might wake up a lot of people(both men and women) to the plights of men, but not without a lot victims and martyrs.

**John Dias** · 28th-January-2007

I think we should clarify that a person without a conscience is a sociopath, but an evil person is someone who is a moral agent (capable of discerning moral choices) and always chooses the evil path. If you have lost the ability to make moral choices, you may be dangerous but I wouldn't describe you as evil.

Someone who knows the good they ought to do and intentionally chooses the morally corrupt path is evil. If your mental state is so far gone that you no longer perceive a moral quandary, I guess that qualifies you as a monster, a menace, but not necessarily evil.