@Bozza I think this is about oil. Securing control of oil rather than about getting actual oil.

Its about who controls the access to the oil.

In recent years, the west has been saying "Oh no we won't trade with you, you are not libtarded enough" This has meant that an axis of trade has developed among those who would resist the west. Every time the west sanction someone or embargo their product they send them to this axis.

When the west was by far the greatest consumer this meant the naughty country was in the dog house and suffered but of late it has led to a virtuous circle for some nations. If you are already in the dog house, then you lose nothing by buying some nice cheap oil. Someone who is subject to sanctions and embargos gains a new much needed customer. China laughs and buys cheap oil, while the west its competitor pays more and has tighter margins.

The solution is to get in control of the market in that country.

Will it work -dunno. The US has not make its mistake of Afghanistan and Iraq and tried to bring in its own administration which has insufficient local loyalties but it has also got very little control of the country by just removing the leader and trying to work with a pragmatic second in command who might otherwise have never been leader.

Its a good stab at imperialism by a country without much experience in the field. Will boots on the ground be needed to get anywhere once the dust has settled? Lets see. It depends what they offer and what they can threaten.

Random Thought - Saturday Edition:

Many women talk about how hard housework is, how difficult it is raising children, the mental and emotional labor they experience, and not being “heard” in marriage.

One could make the case that a MAJOR component of this is their own addictions. Many modern women are, or have become, addicted to:

• The party life
• Social media
• Attention
• Promiscuity (new dick)
• Dancing
• Male validation
• Female validation
• Freedom
• Laziness of youth
• Any one of a number of substances
• The unspecified “hope of the future” (see note below)

So a normal, stable, calm, wholesome, dependable, safe, financially sound life can seem like a prison to them; or as many women have claimed, "a slavery contract"

Reminiscing about the old days, college dorm shenanigans, and whatever her ex is doing to day is a form of self-harm. One could live with this, but the long-term consequences fall on the husband and children - not to mention entire families on both sides who are invested in the success of that marriage.

ALL that gets shattered by a woman’s addictions.

Addictions are ugly, capricious, cruel, and relentless. And some of the worst things an addict can do are:

• Deny the problem
• Hide, lie, obfuscate, deceive, omit information
• Ruminate on the past
• Put themselves in an environment where the addiction is readily available
• Framing the addiction as a form of personal freedom, and the person trying to help you as an oppressor (or controlling, or jealous, or insecure, or a narcissist, or a financial abuser, etc.)

I have no way to validate this, so let’s call it an anecdote - a pattern recognized by one man with an obvious axe to grind.

But now that I’ve put this out there, prove me wrong.

Cheers

DD

@First-light

I think you have put this more concisely than I could have. this is a good comment. If we disregard these guys as "incels" or low value losers then we are ignoring the canary in the coal mine.

The canary dies first because it is weakest. When the canary dies, you know there is a problem. These guys are in the same messed up continuum we are, they are just closer to the fire burning a hole in men's oportunities and happiness today.

Just because the weakest links are breaking does not mean we should not be understanding them or caring about them even if we do not want to emulate them. They have a contribution to make.

Personally I don't really like this praxeology thing anyway. It flies (at least in interpretation) a bit close to "Lived experience" which is a woolly notion the left hides behind for needing special treatment, cancelling and deplatforming people. I want to look for objective measurable reality.

A praxeology studies intentional behaviour (regardless of outcome I might note) and not unconscious and reflexive behaviour. Actually a lot of what we talk about is unintentional and reflexive and where we use intent it is often with the ultimate aim of changing a lived experience to create better reflexive and unintentional behaviour. (like how young men of low status view themselves and interact with women, so they can have more happiness and success).

I am not really happy with the notion of us being a praxeology and would be glad to debate it with anyone who would like.

There is a reality out there. Our aim is to objectively measure it. and act on what we find. If you want to go with "lived experience" I am cool with that so long as every man is a sensor in the array of lived experience. If we don't like how uncalibrated some sensors are, its very hard to say who is right and who is wrong because we all have a subjective assessment of reality.

Sorry to others that is this my only reply to date for a while. Just been a bit busy and its a good topic and deserves a good answer. I just thought Carnold had a good point here that was worth highlighting. These low status men are part of the whole situation and should not be disregarded or silenced because they have not been approved by being worthy of women's love.

"There is no fundamental difference between the godless communist Left-Liberal and the Churchian zionist Right-Conservative, as they accept fundamentally the same precepts and principles and differ only in how those precepts and principles are best applied."

― Voxday, *Source

Live your life, man. That's way more important than us bunch of internet nobodies. Besides, the idea that lack of wealth or status denies males the opportunity to get laid is a comically retarded fallacy. Where there is a will, there is a way.

As far as Elliot Rodger goes, Canaries don't go into coal mines willingly, nor do they arm themselves to murder their closest friends. Just as the media intelligentsia vilified him, so too did many of the manosphere dismiss his kind, which confirmed how dis-genuine and insincere highly visible pro-male personalities have always ever been. It's vastly more cost effective for the agents of the elite to control public sentiment through internet "influencers", than through newspapers, periodicals, tv, radio, or film, and I'm concerned most people are willfully ignorant to this fact.

I've scrutinized enough history to know that when you deny large groups of men the love of community, they'll have nothing to lose should they decide to follow-through and put the community to the torch if only for the sake of feeling some kind of warmth. I find it unsettling is that I understand this is one of many potential outcomes that loom on the horizon and none of them particularly frighten me.