The modern world is hostile to men, it denies him his nature, which is to express himself as he chooses. It denies him this by limiting his options/freedoms and then telling him what he should do. This occurs in both a mental and physical sense. Mentally the dominant culture tells me that I should seek permission if I wish to build something new, that I should seek an authority figure if I wish to learn something new, that I should enjoy 'novelty' (quirky foods, holidays to foreign climes, unfamiliar sports activities) but not genuine newness, nothing genuinely original. Physically the dominant culture tells me that the built environment that I (as a man) live in must remain unaltered unchanged by me, or if I seek to change it, then I must ask permission from an authority figure. The state even decide how to spend my money for me in the form of taxation and fiscal spending. A hundred years ago tax in the UK as a proportion of GDP was about 8%, now it is closer to 40%. That equates to less freedom for each and every man as the government decides how to spend his money.
Being limited to this extent is not the way it is in nature: be it in the woodland, on the steppe, in the desert, on the tundra or wherever. In nature animals, insects and plants alter their surrounding environment freely, when they choose to do so. They don't need to seek an authority figure to gain permission. Elephants fell trees on the Savannah. Why? Not for eating or the leaves or using the trunk and branches, just because they want the environment to be tree-less, to be a grassland, so the result is that they knock down any tree that they can. They don't seek permission, they aren't told what to do or not do, they just do it. In this world, as it stands, I am not allowed to do that. I am discouraged and denied from doing it, and punished if I do it. This thus infringes on my nature as a man.
It is one of the rules of the so-called 'civilized' (i.e. domesticated) world that a man is not allowed to exercise his own nature, he must continually exercise self-restraint. If this rule is enforced too much, if man is tamed too much, then he will simply stop living in the modern world, the civilised world, and will opt out of it. He will opt out of it either: by giving up his manliness and becoming feminised as the dominant group want him to; by giving up his willfulness and becoming apathetic; by not breeding and leaving the gene pool; by committing suicide; by giving up on his country and leaving for a foreign nation-state (emigrating); by giving up on the modern world and resorting to a wild/natural one; or by some other means. If a force is too strong for a man to bear, too opposed to the mans nature, then the man can either capitulate or die or abandon the fight. It's the same principle that applies in one-on-one fight scenarios, fight or flight, for the same reason: the modern world seeks to tame man, man seeks to be free, thus the two forces are opposed to one another, they are enemies, and enemies are forever in a state of combat with one another. The 'Domesticating World' versus 'Unfettered Man'.
Rich Zubaty wrote that 'Cities are feminine. Nature is masculine', if that's true, then it means that the modern world (that's everything from cereal farming on up) is incompatible with mans nature, which means that either cities must die, or man must die. Though if man dies, then the cities will quickly follow behind him, as cities are dependent on men in order to sustain them. So it seems that if you wish to live in some form of modern world then the modern world must become more hospitable to mans instincts to exert himself, and his desire for freedoms, if it wishes to continue. In a physical sense, this could mean a reduced population density (low-rise and detached houses, instead of high-rise and terraced houses), having more unowned spaces (reverting the 'Inclosure Acts', and having common land again), and more freedoms in regards to planning regulation. In a mental sense this could mean more cultural liberty and an ability to express oneself without the absurd risks of imprisonment or social ostracism. If such changes are made, then it may be possible for men to live in the environment freely and without any detrimental effect to themselves, and thus civilisation will be allowed to continue; if not, then men will continue to flee the city that is harming them, and civilisation as it currently stands will perish as a consequence.