Blue Labour is not a new phenomenon

postwarcons

The modern Tories are often criticised by some in the right because they aren’t truly right-wing. In fact, it can be said that the modern Tory party has become more socialist than conservative. Nowhere is this criticism more pronounced than when applied to Theresa May, the sitting Tory Prime Minister who opened her premiership with an emphasis on social justice. On economic policy, she’s pretty much a left-leaning Tory cut from the same cloth as most of the party, and many have noted that she has pilfered her platform from what used to be Ed Miliband’s Labour manifesto.

Some have taken to calling this Blue Labour, and in this regard, I agree, though I think this is one of those times where it’s important to learn some history. While Theresa May’s leftward lurching manifesto is pretty much the right-wing version of a typical Labour manifesto, it’s important that the Blue Labour attitude that today’s Tory party embodies has been around for a very long time. In fact, the official name for this brand of right-wing socialism is “one-nation Toryism”. This has been the policy of every post-war Tory PM except Margaret Thatcher, and this is because it stems from the paternalistic worldview that many Tories hold in regards to society.

The Tories have always been the party of the owning class, but contrary to what most people may believe, the old Tories never believed in capitalism. This is evidenced by Harold Macmillian (who would later become PM in 1957), when he insisted that Toryism as an ideology “has always been a form of paternal socialism. Similarly, another future PM named Anthony Eden made the Tory’s opposition to capitalism clear at the 1947 Conservative Party Conference:

“We are not a party of unbridled, brutal capitalism and never have been. We are not the children of the laissez-faire school. We opposed them decade after decade.”

The reason they despised capitalism was because it went against their own view of how society should be ordered. In their worldview, your standing in life was something you were simply born into. You were rich because your parents were rich, you were poor because your parents were poor, and your children would more than likely go down the same route as you will. Capitalism challenged that idea. In capitalism it doesn’t matter how you were born, because you earn success through your own merits, and fall because of your own failings.

To the poor, capitalism presents a path out of poverty, and the old elites resented that. They resented the idea that anyone could become as rich as them, but they were most fearful of the idea that they could lose their wealth and status. Capitalism was a threat to the economic privilege of the wealthy Tories of the olden days, and thus they favoured socialism, a system that, in practice, protects that privilege under the guise of looking after the poor.

The old Tories thought that it was their job, nay, their duty to run the country, and because of their desire to limit the free markets, they ended up agreeing with Labour’s policy of nationalisation, high taxation, high regulation, and a generous welfare state. This was called the “post-war consensus”, which is basically a system of Keynesian socialism with no more than a glimmer of free markets. In the era of the consensus, everything was nationalised, and the welfare state grew until it eventually became unsustainable. Although this consensus began under a Labour government, it was the Tories that truly ushered in the era of consensus-style socialism then ran through to the 1970’s. That was one-nation Toryism in action.

Of course, while the post-war consensus was supposed to give us prosperity after the war, it ended up paralysing the economy by overburdening the state, which by the 1970’s was running out of money because it was paying to keep all the industries going, and the taxpayers were getting less and less able to foot the bill. The consensus was defeated when Margaret Thatcher took power and brought a swift end to nationalisation, putting her at odds with the traditional one-nation Tories. In the end, the EU-loving Tories ousted her from party leadership, and returned to their old ways, and now one-nation Toryism, perhaps the last remnant of consensus-era politics, is the policy of the modern Tory party, as exemplified in the current manifesto.

This Blue Labour philosophy is so entrenched in British conservatism that there really is no right wing in mainstream British politics, and no, UKIP is too weak to count. This part of how the left has come to dominate the narrative in British society, because there is no true right to oppose it, and there hasn’t been since Thatcher lost power. Now it seems like we’re headed for a long reign of protectionism, economic regulations, but at least nationalisation is not on their agenda anymore, all while our civil liberties continue the slow path of erosion. This is Blue Labour in action, but because the alternative is blatant Marxism, it seems this is the only way. Just when we thought they were gone, the days of “There is no alternative” are more alive than ever.

Advertisements

Don’t drink the Kool-Aid, Gavin

gavin mcinnes

Normally I see Gavin McInnes, one of the main stars of the conservative online politics channel The Rebel Media, in a positive light. When I first saw him in an interview with Paul Joseph Watson, he came across as an edgy counter-cultural conservative who, like me, opposes the worst perversities of the far-left. However, I think lately he’s been drinking too much of conservative Kool-Aid, and now he’s sliding the slippery slope towards the authoritarian kind of conservative that I opposed in the first place.

The reason I’m talking about this is that he recently made a video entitled “Millennials aren’t interested in having sex. Here’s whose fault that is.”, which addresses the fact that, according to recent studies, millennials are less interested in sexual intercourse than previous generations. I maintain my stance that whether or not you have sex at all is a matter of choice, but I think the problem associated with young people not having sex as often they used to is usually linked with low birth rates. While I personally blame feminism and culturally Marxist gender professors for damaging relationships between men and women (and even Gavin mentions them, but only briefly), that apparently isn’t Gavin’s conclusion. Do you want to know what he thinks is the problem? Porn and video games. That’s right, Gavin literally just toed the conservative Christian line, blaming the things young people enjoy rather than the culture that is stunting the male sex drive.

In the video, which was uploaded to YouTube on August 10th, Gavin, despite giving a more accurate reason for the low interest in sex (mentioning the war on boys that Christian Hoff Summers wrote about), basically spends the whole video chiding online porn and promoting his “Proud Boys” movement, a hypermasculine group with a vaguely pick-up-artist-like philosophy, whose goal is to get men off porn and video games in order to train men to achieve traditional ideals of masculinity. The fatal flaw is that not only is his case against porn based on sketchy science (including blaming divorce on porn based by his own admission on him guessing), but he also assumes that any man who watches porn or plays video games regularly is a loser who dropped out of society, totally ignoring the myriad of factors that play into a man’s life choices.

Much of his argument is him complaining about how the men of today aren’t anything remotely like the men of his time, and his solution is for men to join his weird “No Wanks” site (which he claims is the “religion” of his “proud boys”), and for men to pick up five girls a day. Congratulations Gavin, you and your Proud Boys are literally the strawman feminists thrive on! His views on video games are even worse, citing even sketchier sources to make a case that video games are bad for you (and he once tweeted that “if you’re playing video games for hours a day, your balls are long gone”). At this point, he sounds like an utterly cliche concerned parent from the 1990’s, and for those of us younger right-wingers in the modern world, it’s just embarrassing to see a whiny conservative commentator who acts like a stereotypical reactionary grandfather. Seriously, he makes me people like me sound like progressives by comparison.

He claims that his seemingly cult-like Proud Boys movement has been effective, citing people that he has talked to in the past. However, I have found no significant evidence to support his claim, and from he said, it sounds if he pressures people into it, and he outright admits that he pushed one person too far. The person in question being Michael Kittrell (a.k.a. CopperCab), and Gavin takes responsibility for causing him to become transgendered. I’d like to point out that I have nothing against Michael (now Claire) Kittrell mind you, he can do whatever he wants (and call himself whatever he desires), but if it’s true that Gavin pushed him into that state, then I have some serious questions for him about what exactly his movement does.

Of course, this is the same man who condemns gaming as an indulgence for children (he dismissed #Gamergate for exactly that reason in a video he made last year), and currently supports Donald Trump purely on the basis of getting on the bandwagon, and to him any conservative that doesn’t support Trump is a baby who needs to “man up”. He made another video entitled “Top 10 Things Wrong With Kids These Days”, in which he chides toddlers for things that they do naturally, giving me the impression that he’s basically like a grumpy old man who’s just mad that the world isn’t the way it was in his time.

old man yells at cloud

Gavin isn’t even the only one in The Rebel Media toeing the stodgy old “games are bad” line. Their own Faith Goldy made a video claiming that Pokémon Go turns adults into children who lose interest in the world around them, and docile enough to submit to the will of the liberal elite. That’s a very poor argument even by the standards of the craziest right-wing Christian out there, and to make matters worse, she compared the game to Paul Woltsch, the man who left his wife and seven kids to live as a six-year-old girl. I swear if it weren’t for Lauren Southern, The Rebel Media would quickly be turning into the right-wing version of The Young Turks, which it will if Gavin McInnes keeps up this “proud boys” nonsense for long enough.

For me, Gavin’s attitude isn’t good for the conservative movement at all. Doesn’t he realise that it is precisely his paternalistic brand of anti-porn and anti-gaming conservatism that pushed young people over to the left in the first place? I swear that people like him are the best advertising the left ever needs, because it’s people like him that keep the left in business, and in case Gavin doesn’t realise it, his stodgy old-fashioned conservatism is unappealing for young libertarians like myself, and younger, more moderate conservatives who don’t necessarily hold the same authoritarian worldview of the previous generation of conservatives. If we in the right have any hope of weakening the influence of social justice leftists in the mainstream, we need to be able to convince people that we aren’t the stodgy reactionaries that the media portrays us as. People like Gavin McInnes, whose head seems to be stuck in the ’80’s, are easy prey for the left-wing media, and as long as the right has these guys, the left can still use the whole “those crazy right-wingers” argument to make us look insane in front of an impressionable young audience.

That’s why I worry about Gavin McInnes’ approach, because we don’t need more old-fashioned conservatives like him or Rush Limbaugh. As far as I’m concerned, they are a liability in the modern culture war against social justice warriors, and they only have two options – they can either drop the whole anti-porn and anti-gaming shtick because it isn’t a winning issue, or they can continue toeing the conservative Christian line, and ensuring that the right have no credibility.

A bad time to be a libertarian on Facebook

cuckerberg

It seems that free speech on Facebook is circling the drain with each day. I’ve written before about how Facebook has been caught censoring conservative news outlets from the trending section, but now I’ve been hearing about how they’re removing conservative and libertarian pages from Facebook. Recently, the Facebook pages Being Libertarian and Occupy Democrats Logic, both of which were critical of the progressive ideology that Facebook marinates in, were shut down by Facebook simply for posting memes.

How bad were they you might ask? Not at all. They were basically innocuous, satirical memes. Being Libertarian got struck down for a meme that said “hating white people makes me non-racist”, which was a jab at the racial politics of the regressive left. Occupy Democrats Logic, a page that debunks content from the notorious left-wing propaganda page Occupy Democrats, was targeted for a meme that pointed out liberal hypocrisy on homophobia, highlighting how, despite the fact that both Christianity and Islam proscribe homosexuality, progressives denounce Christians as bigots, but don’t give Islam the same treatment.

Of course, the progressives over in Facebook don’t like satire (unless it mocks conservatives or is very tame), and they certainly don’t like they’re ideology being questioned, so they removed the posts under the false pretence of “violating community standards”, and before long the group page was removed. The same happened with Being Libertarian, as well as Liberty Memes, a page that shared the “silly Americans, laws are for poor people meme”, which was critical of Hillary Clinton. It’s not just libertarians who are being targeted. When news of Facebook censoring conservative news outlets from its trending feed broke out, Facebook began to censor conservatives who spoke out on Facebook. According to Lauren Southern, a conservative libertarian journalist from Rebel Media, Facebook had apparently banned all the moderator accounts running the conservative Disdain for Plebs page merely for arguing in defence of Donald Trump. When another Disdain for Plebs moderator called Facebook out for censoring conservatives he was banned too, as was Lauren Southern when she called Facebook out for it.

One thing is becoming clear – much like Twitter, Facebook is becoming increasingly intolerant of conservatives, libertarians, and anyone who thinks outside the progressive line of thinking that Mark Zuckerberg is clearly entrenched in. Indeed, we free-thinkers may be living in dark times, what with the social justice takeover of academia and Obama’s plan to relinquish US control of the Internet to an international body. Am I to believe that freedom of speech has become completely dispensable to the establishment? That’s basically what’s happening, and the controlled media is silent on this because they’re essentially on the same side as Facebook. With social media CEO’s like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey so trigger happy about censoring ideas and speech that counters their views, I can’t help but be concerned about the future of political discussion on social media. After all, if conservative and libertarian pages get censored so easily, how long will it be before people who post dissenting opinions on their timeline get censored?

All the more galling is Facebook’s hypocrisy on the matter of what constitutes offensive speech. They will ban people for defending Donald Trump, and pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals, and yet they allow Occupy Democrats to spread blatant lies, Black Lives Matter gets to spread their hateful propaganda on the site, and the far-left Class War group, which was responsible for arranging a violent riot in Shoreditch last year and are actually considering partying on the grave of the deceased Duke of Westminster, gets to spread all manner of hateful propaganda, including stuff that might actually qualify as “hate speech”, and they’re able to get away with it.

To me, it’s becoming more and more obvious that Facebook has a left-wing bias. I’ve known this for the past three months, and this concerns me because of how much I believe in free speech. I believe that everyone is entitled to have a platform, no matter how uncomfortable or repulsive their views may seem to us. If even one person is silenced, then the rights of all of us are endangered, because of one person is silenced, who will be next? How long will it be before everyone else on Facebook becomes too afraid to speak their own mind? If that happens, Facebook will end suffering the fate that Twitter is know – it will become an echo chamber for progressives and the far-left, and anyone who disagrees with the progressive ideology of its CEO will be censored or banned. That is the future I see for Facebook if this continues, and I can only look on in worry.

Don’t just look for the usual suspects

us and them

It’s really starting to get old.

Back in the 20th century, society was essentially dominated by conservative ideology. Up until at least the 1990’s, the narrative of Western culture seemed to be based on a right-wing understanding of the world, which had become dogma. In that narrative, the conservatives were the good guys, and the liberals were painted as a threat to society. Flash forward to the 2010’s, and things are now quite different. Now, left-wing ideology forms the dominant narrative of society, so now liberals are the good guys, and anyone who shows even a slight leaning towards conservative ideology is painted as either evil or just stupid. That’s the narrative that my generation grew up on, and it’s getting old.

Political discourse now seems to be based on one side shaming the other, especially in America, where a number of violent incidents have been attributed to right-wing racists. It also doesn’t help that America’s conservative politicians have garnered a certain reputation for their bad temper, childish behaviour, contempt for the working class, and a slew of nonsensical laws. To the average man, these are reasons why conservatives are the bad guys, but a lot of the mainstream attitude towards politics in general has been based in hyperbole. Even though I’ve gone on record in my scorn for America’s conservatives, I worry that in the political arena, they’ve become the easy target, probably because it’s very hard to defend them (to be fair, even I won’t). In fact, it’s gotten so easy that political satirists have made it part of their normal routine, and even John Oliver does this when he talks about American politics. In a sense, conservatives have become easy scapegoats.

What about liberals? On top of being as idealistic as an after school special, left-wing politicians expect the state to handle everything. Recently the left-wingers have been focusing heavily on equality, bashing the rich, and protecting women (and themselves) from hateful speech online, but they have not given much thought about freedom. In fact, one thing I’ve noticed is that left-wing politicians only seem to care about freedom when it’s being threatened by their right-wing adversaries. When liberal politicians aren’t defending freedom to make the other side look bad, they threaten to undermine the liberties of the wealthy and of businesses, and sometimes, they threaten our online liberties in order to appeal to victim mentality (this is increasingly and depressingly truer in Britain), and yet when liberals threaten civil liberties, only the intelligent raise a finger and nobody cares, but when conservatives threaten civil liberties, everyone gangs up on them like their the evil monster who’s been killing all their livestock.

To be fair, some conservative politicians, such as Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, have proven themselves to be genuinely despicable figures, but not all conservatives are like them. In fact, it’s this kind of blanket judgement that a lot of left-wing news outlets practice constantly. Okay, right-wingers do it a lot as well, but that’s the thing – there’s no difference in how liberals and conservatives conduct themselves. It doesn’t matter when both sides wants to tell you how to live, just that they’ll turn people against each other for a bit of entertainment, and how apt that would be, considering it’s all just a game. The only reason we elevate it above other games is that this particular game has very real consequences.

The ultimate problem, as I see it, is precisely the fact that we get too caught up in the game, and we take it for more than what it is. It’s simply a game where the prize is dominance. We forget that left and right are simply teams that demand the loyalty of players. Very few of those team members truly believe their own hype whatever side they’re playing, and even if they do, you shouldn’t trust them too much. In other words, don’t waste time picking on the easy targets when you can’t even trust the other side either. Yes, I still despise the right, but I can’t say I totally trust the left.

The future of faith

faith

In today’s post-modern world, religion is slowly but surely losing its influence over humanity, and as this is happening I’m beginning to suspect that the true value of religious faith is being exposed. When I say this, I’m saying that, with new ways of thinking that make more sense than perspectives offered by organized religion, it is clear that many people don’t have a lot of reason to care about religion to begin with, especially as many people continue to equate all religion with the major organized religions, and the horrible atrocities they are now associated with.

I think that this pattern makes sense. In the dark ages, faith in the religious sense was incredibly strong, but it was due only to the fact that the Catholic Church had created an atmosphere where belief in and submission to God was paramount to survival. Anyone who deviated from the template was persecuted as a heretic. Many died going against the authority of the Church. In today’s world, faith in God is not something you have to have in order to survive. Therefore, many people are only cultural believers, in that they claim to follow Christian values because their afraid of going against the flow, since the Christian culture code still remains subtly dominant to this day.

This mentality is consistently exploited by social conservatives who trumpet the Christian faith, using Christian moral values as a control mechanism to enslave a society still struggling to move on from a frankly embarrassing era in human history. Personally, I think they themselves have a very weak sense of faith. After all, if they’re so desperate to get everyone to believe in their faith, what does it have to say about them? Or, there’s the far more likely scenario that the right-wing sermonizers don’t even believe their own words, and are simply using religion to make a fast buck. Sadly, those self-righteous shysters are all too common, and with them around, it’s little wonder that the idea of religious faith sounds unattractive in today’s world.

Speaking of proselytic shysters, am I the only one who finds it baffling that it’s always the conservatives who take up a religious stance in this world? Why is it that nearly every conservative will leap to the defence of religion when the subject is brought up? Given the consequences of binding oneself or an entire nation to a single religion, what would they have to gain from a staunchly religious stance? Perhaps many conservative politicians only look to religion as a lucrative source of both votes and money, further invoking the human cynicism towards religious faith in the modern world. It might also be possible that religion has become something associated with “the Man”, and in America, nothing exemplifies this more than the presence of the slogan “one nation under God”, which has been a right-wing byword since the 1950’s.

one nation under god

And then, you have the problem of disseminating faith to the next generation. A good reason why religion still survives is because it’s been passed down from generation to generation, but the problem here is that many only believe because they’ve been brought up to believe, and in the Western world, most kids are still brought up on the smoke and mirrors of conservative Christian social values. If given a choice, I think that most kids wouldn’t give a damn about God. I know for a fact that I didn’t until the brief time in which I went to church.

For me, the future of faith is a very bleak one, but that’s only because faith and religion are generally seen by the ignorant masses as one and the same. I think it might also have something to do with the fact that religion isn’t exactly relevant to most people’s lives. If people didn’t judge each other over what they believe, most people wouldn’t even bother cosying up to Christian values, and if religious values have to be kept alive through fear, judgmentalism and paranoid politics, then just how true is our faith in God?

Despite what I’ve said in this article, this doesn’t just apply to Christianity. In fact, it can be applied to any world religion, just that I feel Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity, is the religion that typifies this trend more than any other, and that particular religion has set a very bad example for other world religions. If the idea of faith is to have any future, then I think we need to rethink the way we see it, and by that I mean we should stop seeing faith as a matter for the whole of society. Instead, I think faith should be a matter of the individual. After all, what we believe ultimately comes down to our feelings and choices. If we continue going with the flow of pernicious sermonizing under the guise of morality, then religion is only doomed to lose yet more meaning in the eyes of many, and when it does finally die, it will die a very undignified death.

The hidden dark side of the religious right

Whenever sexual education comes up as a topic at all, conservative Christians are always on the offensive. They try and make the case that teaching sexual education to younger ages might be a gateway to paedophilia and underage sex, when in actuality, it might have the opposite effect. Whenever the Catholic church was accused of covering up allegations of paedophilia targeted at their priests, however, conservative Christians remained silent.

Doesn’t that sound odd to you at all? Call me crazy, but I think that there’s something extremely odd about the way conservative Christians act when it comes to sex.

For example, when a Chicago school district implemented a mandatory sex education program at each grade level, the conservative Christian media outlets panicked, and began spreading the myth that the district was practising paedophilia. In actuality, this program was implemented in order to help children learn the difference between a “good touch” and a “bad touch”, and hopefully identify and report actual perverts. Let me ask a question: why on Earth would right-wing Christians have a problem with it?

At this point, it should be obvious. The conservative Christians must obviously be raging perverts. But what if this is something bigger. What if the Christian church is basically a cabal of paedophiles who actively preserve the status quo in order to ensure that they can still indulge their sick pleasures?

It sounds crazy, but at the same time, it makes perfect sense. Why else would conservative Christians want to fight a program designed to help children identify potential paedophiles? The only reason they would try and actively fight it is if it means they get caught, and singled out as perverts, which would obviously bring them unimaginable shame.

The tabloids also have a role in all this. Many tabloids take up a conservative (or at least populist) attitude towards a number of issue, but they seem to be obsessed with paedophiles. Whenever the tabloids focus on the paedophiles, they do two things:

  1. They report child abuse cases in suspiciously graphic detail.
  2. They implicitly make child abuse cases worse.

See, the tabloids create such a hysteria over child abuse that not only does it cause existing predators to further intimidate their victims (due to them becoming more fearful of being caught), but it may also arouse disturbing sexual thoughts in people who may otherwise not have thought of it. This, of course, causes more child abuses cases, which means more stories for the tabloids, which gives the tabloids more money.

Another thing that always sounded odd to me was the fact that conservatives and the tabloids seemed to be fixated on child pornography. In fact, David Cameron’s porn filter plan was based on the Daily Mail’s constant panicking over porn, and it’s alleged effect on our children.

Here’s another twist. The Daily Mail seems to be very defensive of Christianity, and their editors are ardent supporters of the Conservative party. Therefore, isn’t it possible that the Daily Mail editors are basically sick perverts with twisted imaginations? I think they are. After all, why else would they aggressively demand that porn basically be wiped out, while simultaneously fixating on anything to do with sex?

What’s happening here is that the tabloids are causing more division over sex, and planting sick thoughts into their readers in order to generate more stories to make more money.

What does this have to do with religion? Well, only the fact that the church doesn’t seem to be doing anything about it. If the conservative Christian church isn’t doing anything about this then either they have no idea of the whole thing, or they know exactly what’s going on, but keep quiet in order to preserve the status quo

I don’t claim to know if there can be any real explanation for this odd behaviour, but one thing is clear: something is very wrong. There are people out there with sick thoughts and sick intentions, and the right-wing politicians in Britain and America seem to be on their side.

Our dependence on ideology

Have you ever noticed how, regardless of political ideology, politicians from all around the world seem to constantly repeat the mistakes of the past? This is probably proof that ideology doesn’t matter once you’re in power. However, an ideology can become dominant in a society. What happens then is that it becomes a part of our cultural values.

For centuries, conservatism was the domination political ideology of the day, and history has shown what that has led to. The church persecuted every other religion, fascist leaders engaged in genocide, corruption was allowed to fester, and the fear of God had pretty much altered human nature. Everyone who wasn’t a Christian, white male was treated as a second-class citizen, big corporations had absolute freedom to do as they pleased, and the environment took a serious beating. With conservatism as the dominant ideology, society pretty much looked like this:

conservatism

A microcosm of Hell.

It’s only been a few decades since liberalism became the dominant ideology of our time, and we’ve already seen the sad consequences. Freedom is being curtailed in the name of political correctness, we’re forced to pick up the environmental mess caused by corporate waste dumping, and we can’t compliment a pretty girl without it being misconstrued as perversion, harassment, or misogyny. Now, we’re actively destroying any tradition that isn’t “ethnic”, and speaking of ethnic, society is being more open-minded about other cultures, while shunning its own culture, and we’re now obsessed with collective responsibility. With liberalism as the dominant ideology, society now looks like this:

jersey shore

GET IT AWAY FROM ME!!!!

With that in mind, I believe that society is so dependent on ideology that it hasn’t even considered the possibility of rejecting both ideologies entirely. Why is that good? Because liberalism and conservatism are nothing more than two extremes.

  • With liberalism, society is a bunch of wimps who are always watching their tongue, hoping not to offend anyone.
  • Conservatism is the other extreme, where society imposes outdated dogma upon others, and treats everyone like crap.

Maybe we should just stick to having a middle ground, because it’s obvious that relying on one of two extremes is not working. In fact, most people don’t even care for either extreme. They just want to live their lives without having to care for whose beliefs are right or wrong.

Without power, ideologies are harmless sets of beliefs. When they are in power, and imposed on the masses, as during today, they’re flimsy pretexts for the rape of freedom, just like religion. The problem is that in a democracy, this cycle is going to continue until mankind collapses, unless we do something. But what?