Profhugodegaris.files.wordpress.com



MASCULISM AND GLOBAL WARMING Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garisprofhugodegaris@ is going to have a profound impact on the global warming debate, because it will cause billions of men to reject paternity, until the gender laws are made menfair. Legislating the Parer (paternity rejection right) will probably take decades, and will prove to be as vicious a fight as was the fight of the suffragettes for the female vote.In the meantime, as masculism spreads throughout the planet, millions of young men will have their masculist consciousnesses raised, becoming conscious of how badly traditional marriage and paternity suck for men, so they will reject marriage and paternity, which will cause the population to crash, which in turn will impact strongly on global warming and the global warming debate.The core notion of the masculists is that men’s lib i.e. the liberation of men, is largely about the liberation of men from being manslaves to women, working for women, refusing to have relationships with traditional fluffies, i.e. women who expect to be able to parasite off the money and labor of a man.Fluffies are vermin to masculists, to be wiped out, by being totally ignored by masculists and MGTOWs (men going their own way, who reject marriage, reject paternity, and spend their money on themselves). Fluffies are not even pumped and dumped by these two men’s liberation groups, thus forcing fluffie parasite genes to be removed from the gene pool.Masculism is the 21st century equivalent of 19th century north American abolitionism. The 19th century abolitionists saw negro slavery as a moral abomination. The 21st century masculists see manslavery as a moral abomination, and aim to wipe it out, by refusing to be manslaves to fluffie parasites and to fluffie feminist hypocrites (who, hypocritically, expect equal rights with men in the parliaments, but behave as fluffie parasites in the divorce courts, treating men as cash machines, to be robbed and abused by fluffie ex-wives.)At the time of writing, 2020, in many advanced countries, the percentage of young men under 35 who refuse to marry and have kids is now about 70%. If the gender laws are not soon menfaired, that percentage will probably rise to over 90% a decade from now, so that within a mere generation, the population size will have catastrophically collapsed. It is this population collapse that is so significant, because it is largely caused by the masculist/MGTOW rejection of paternity, which in turn is caused by the fluffie feminist takeover of the divorce courts, making them so toxic for men that these fluffie feminist divorce court judges and lawyers have become indirect genociders, who have to be stopped, with bullets in necessary, in a sex war, since no culture accepts passively its own annihilation, without a fight.Masculist soldiers, will not tolerate that the fluffie feminist genociders indirectly wipe out whole populations. These masculist soldiers will simply assassinate the gender politicians who have created these profoundly misandrist divorce laws that financially massacre one father in four. They will murder the fluffie feminist divorce court lawyers and judges, and may even go out into the streets and simply shoot the feminazis who have the attitude that men exist on this earth to pay for women to have babies, to whom fluffies have no loyalty, seeing men as having no genes in common with women, the baby creators, who use men as disposable resource providers, to be robbed and abused.It may take several decades of masculist agitation before this fluffie parasitic attitude of women is crushed out of them by overwhelming emotional rejection of them by masculists, forcing such women to rot on the shelf, utterly rejected by men, and increasingly, as masculist ideas spread across the planet, such women will be spat at, treated as vermin, as pariahs, to be socially rejected, and reviled.Let us assume that the gender laws are not menfaired in one to two decades from now, and ask what impact that will have on the population size and in turn, on the global warming phenomenon and debate.Let us assume that a decade from now, 90% of young men are rejecting paternity, due to a widespread awareness of what the masculists and MGTOWs are telling them on the internet, and hopefully via the journalists, who will have finally latched onto the critical importance of what the masculists are saying. (Since the MGTOWs are politically passive, they will make little contribution to educating the media people.)How long will it take for the gender politicians to become conscious that the major reason why the population is crashing is because of what the hated fluffie feminist hypocrites are doing to men in the divorce courts (i.e. ripping men’s kids from them with a 90% probability, giving his house to his fluffie ex-wife, so she can raise HER kids in it, forcing him to pay child support to his kids whom he will barely see, losing half his stuff to his fluffie ex-wife, paying alimony for life, with no legal nor moral obligation on his fluffie ex-wife to get off her fat parasitic arse and FIP up, so that she continues to parasite off his money after the divorce, the way she did before the divorce.)Even the most misandrist, feminazi bitch of a woman cannot fail to see that the massive injustices committed against men in the fluffie feminist controlled divorce courts. If such women don’t care about such injustices happening to men, then that feminazi callousness towards men, will only reinforce the hateful attitude of masculist soldiers, to kill such women, when and if the sex war comes.With 90% of young men in the advanced countries rejecting paternity, obviously the population will crash, and this may be a good thing in relation to the global warming problem, since global warming is ultimately a consequence of there being too many people on the earth, all producing carbon dioxide, which is a green house gas, that is warming up the planet, causing the global warming phenomenon.Before proceeding further with the discussion of the impact of masculism on global warming, I need to place a strong question mark on whether hotter temperatures over the earth is actually a NET (i.e. considering the costs vs. the benefits) bad thing for the earth and the earth’s human population. When one looks at the percentage of the earth’s total land surface area that is too cold to be habitable (e.g. Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, northern Russia, northern Siberia, and the massive land mass miles under the Antarctic ice, that has more than twice the surface area of Australia) then one cannot but wonder “If all this massive land mass becomes humanly habitable, then could its gains outweigh its losses?” For example, imagine that the northwest passage becomes navigable by ships throughout the year, and that northern Russia and northern Canada become warmer and humanly habitable, then an enormous trade between the massive east west continent of Eurasia and the massive north south continent of the Americas could open up, generating enormous wealth for both northern regions. Have a look at a world atlas looking down at the north pole and see how close the two massive continents are to each other. I call these newly thawed regions of the world, the “new new world.” It is not at all obvious to me that global warming is necessarily a NET bad thing. Of course, if the ice caps melt, and hence sea levels rise, so that many coastal cities will be drowned, then that is obviously a disaster for the local populations, but over several centuries, once the new new world opens up and is developed, is global warming then of necessity a bad thing? I have serious doubts about this question.But, imagine, that the politicians of the world, decide that the global warming phenomenon has to be stopped, because in the shorter term, hundreds of millions of people are going to be severely economically and emotionally impacted as sea levels rise. Cities like New York, London, Amsterdam, etc., a long list, will be wiped out, drowned, destroyed – an absolute disaster. (End of part 1.)So is it possible that the politicians may actually decide to allow the fluffie feminists to keep control of the divorce courts, so that young men continue to reject paternity, so that the world population continues to decrease, thus reducing the global warming effect, due to the fact that there are fewer people, thus reducing the quantity of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere, thus lowering the rise of the earth’s temperature, thus solving the global warming problem?It may come to this. The politicians may come to the conclusion, that the survival of the planet’s major cities is worth the sacrifice of the well being of young men, who are getting royally fucked financially in the divorce courts. These politicians may perform a cost benefit analysis, and decide that causing men to hate the fluffie feminist controlled divorce courts, is actually a good thing, because it is a very effective way to reduce the population, whose large size is the ultimate cause of the global warming problem.But young men will not tolerate being financially crucified in the hated fluffie feminist dominated divorce courts. They will vote with their feet, by not marrying, not having kids, which is precisely what the politicians want. So the world population drops, until what point?Common sense says that this state of affairs, where young men are sacrificed for the sake of reducing the world population, cannot continue, because if it does, we wipe ourselves out on a planetary scale, so at some stage, the “screw the young men” strategy of the politicians, has to be stopped. So when should it be stopped? There are the famous “Georgia Guidestones” in Georgia, USA, that have written on them, the goals that humanity should aim towards, to create a better, happier earth. One of those aims is to reduce the world population to about half a billion, i.e. to one sixteenth the current figure of about 8 billion people.Whether this figure can be reached before men rebel so viciously, that a sex war erupts, is an open question. If young men realize that the older politicians are rejecting the menfairing of the gender laws, as a tool to reduce the population, as a means to solve the global warming problem, then that realization will make them bitter, and all the more likely to assassinate these politicians. Millions of young men want to have kids, to be fathers, but with the divorce courts so toxic for men, and especially for fathers, millions of young men will prefer to reject marriage and paternity, by living the MGTOW life style.The gender politicians may be playing a risky game. They may succeed in bringing the population right down, thus solving the global warming problem, but at the risk of assassination, or being voted out of office, as the masculists take hold of the media, hurling abuse at these politicians, so that they get voted out of power.Let us assume, that the population is greatly reduced, via one cause or another, so that the surviving population now needs to reach a replacement level in the birthrate of 2.1 children per woman, otherwise, if the very low birthrates of the current age continue, then we wipe ourselves out. It’s just math.So, when the time comes to raise the birthrate to 2.1 or a bit over, how could that be done. The rejection of marriage and paternity by young men, is not the only cause of the population crash, although it is the dominant one, given the large proportion of young men who are doing it. There are other causes of the population crash, e.g. the growing desire of women to have powerful, demanding careers, and not wanting to have two kids, or even any. One of the daughters of my brother is a hot-shot lawyer, who is the only female partner in her international law firm. She does not want any kids, preferring to devote her considerable talents, her time and energy to her very demanding, and very satisfying career.Lots of women choose to have just one kid, to satisfy their maternal instincts, but prefer not to have a second, for career reasons, as well as for purely financial reasons. Having a kid is very expensive, e.g. in the US, it costs about $250,000 to raise a kid until it is financially independent. So, how to raise the birthrate? One obvious solution is to menfair the gender laws, so that paternity is not so toxic for men, so that men get to keep their kids, and not face a massive one chance in four of losing them. (Half of marriages end in divorce, and in half of those divorces, the ex-wife turns into a vindictive, feminazi bitch, out to destroy the life of the ex-husband, taking his kids, and as much money from him as she can.) The gender politicians can become more masculist in their mentalities, pushing more readily for the menfairing of the gender laws, legislating the Parer (paternity rejection right), so that men feel a sense of gender justice, so will look upon marriage and fatherhood as not being toxic, that men and women are being treated fairly by the law.Gender politicians, can use their influence to change educational attitudes, so that half of the primary and secondary school teachers are male. Little boys need to be given male role models in primary school, rather than in today’s female dominated teacher environment, who are mostly monoconscious feminists, who brainwash these little boys that men are toxic, that men are morally inferior, men are even dumber than women, etc. The gender politicians need to become a lot more masculist oriented in their views of the world, so that the gender laws are made menfair.Gender politicians can pay out hefty child support payments to couples who want to have kids. Gender politicians can adjust the tax code, so that parents pay less tax. In the limit, if the birthrate refuses to go past the replacement rate, then governments can set up baby farms, in which women are paid by the tax payers to grow kids full time, which are then raised by these mothers, and are “father nurtured” in the sense that volunteer males provide male role models to the sons and daughters in a widely organized government ernments can advertise to women and to men to have more kids, saying it is their patriotic, or even their humanitarian duty to replace themselves, otherwise humanity wipes itself out. It is likely that talk of overpopulation in past decades will be replaced by talk of population collapse. So the zeitgeist needs to change, which is something that government advertising, and propaganda, can influence. With the gender laws menfaired, men will be a lot more willing to be fathers again, but causing that menfairing of the gender laws, will require a commitment on the part of the gender politicians, which for the reasons given above, may not happen in order to solve the global warming problem.Probably in reality, the most probable scenario will be something in between these two extreme scenarios, of very angry masculisted men assassinating the gender politicians, and governments setting up baby farms. It is likely that the population will fall, for a string of reasons, the biggest of which is paternity rejection on the part of masculisted men, given the toxicity of the divorce courts taken over by the hated fluffie feminist hypocrites. Female careering, and the growing expense of raising a single kid will also play a role in dropping the population size.Longer term, I see the global warming problem being solved by reducing the population to a manageable amount, so that too little carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere to cause global warming. With far fewer people, it wont matter too much if each individual is a real polluter, because the earth’s environment will be powerful enough to repair the damage, but it may take a reduction to about half a billion people for that to happen. One way or another, it is likely in the coming decade or two, that nearly any educated person will agree with the idea that the rise of masculism will have a profound impact on the global warming issue.Cheers,Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garisprofhugodegaris@ of the book “MASCULISM : Men’s Rebellion Against Being Manslaves to Women, An e-Textbook of 370+ Masculist Flyers for Men’s Studies Courses” freely downloadable in MS Word format, from my website. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download